Theres a contradiction in the Trump, and by extension Republican, deregulatory agenda that could inadvertently threaten the recovery of an already wavering economy.

That aberration is the continued reflexive embrace of antitrust regulation, an original sin of the administrative state with vast, potentially destructive societal costs.

With antitrust intervention, politicians and bureaucrats do not merely push companies around; they also directly or indirectly dictate business models and can even inappropriately influence the trajectory of entire economic sectors in non-market directions.

A picture taken on August 28, 2019 shows the US multinational technology and Internet-related ... [+] services company Google logo (top L), US online store application Amazon (top C), US online social media and social networking service, Facebook (top R) and US multinational technology company Apple logo application (down C) displayed on a tablet in Lille. (Photo by DENIS CHARLET / AFP) (Photo credit should read DENIS CHARLET/AFP via Getty Images)

The big tech news this week is a hearing in the House Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

Called "Online Platforms and Market Power: Examining the Dominance of Amazon AMZN , Apple AAPL , Facebook, and Google, GOOGL " the hearing will feature the CEOs of each, appearing remotely: Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg, respectively. This hearing is the committees sixth in a series.

Its bad news when both parties favor economic regulatory intervention and thats the state were in now with antitrust. While international regulators and state attorneys general have their sights on these companies, all are targets of federal antitrust investigation by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in the Trump administration. (Attorney General Bob Barr, separately testifying in Judiciary this week, is taking a lead role.)

In a joint statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said:

Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement. Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. "

The subcommittee will ultimately issue a report based on more than a year of information gathering, but will likely downplay letters for the record and inconvenient testimony from antitrust skeptics. How do we know that? A headline on Drudge referred to an APPLEFACEBOOKAMAZONGOOGLE Reckoning. Other articles refer to the CEOs facing a "grilling."

The very notion of monopoly power in intangible code, in ones and zeros, seems perverse, though. And here we observe not one monopoly but four companies (other giants could have also been invited to testify) vigorously competing against one another in various ways. That would seem to exemplify competition rather than the stifling of it with which big tech stands accused.

The chief internal contradiction of antitrust is that it decries bigness and excess power but then urges that the biggest and most powerful entity of all the government wielding the life or death power over all the CEOs domains impose a subjective remedy.

And government enjoys that power not just in the present case, but enjoyed it in all those that came before, and will in all those interventions to come after. That is a truly awesome power.

So we go through this theater with the dominant firms of the day every so often (AT&T, IBM IBM , Microsof MSFT t). Google is accused of favoring its own content in search results, Apple of downlisting rival apps, Facebook (and non-invitee Twitter, too) of suppressing conservative speech. Other gripes will be aired.

If the companies are so bad and the claimed consumer harm the only condition that could justify intervention is real, the more honest approach of the grandstanders would simply be to directly forbid consumers from using any of these companies services. Consumers would surely thank Congress for its protection, right?

An antitrust subcommittee doing antitrust stuff is one thing; whats more striking is the degree to which Trump himself has energized and legitimized tech attacks, especially regarding issues like content moderation that will ride along at what is ostensibly an antitrust-centric hearing. (One GOP member wants the aforementioned Barr to investigate Facebooks Zuckerberg for allegedly lying about to Congress about anti-conservative bias in prior hearings.)

On the one hand, and consistent with the Trump administrations well-known and broad deregulatory agenda to energize business, the administration took early steps to cut merger review times overall, and to speed up bank merger approvals via internal streamlining at the Federal Reserve and at the Comptroller of the Currency.

But often, President Trump has threatened antitrust action against tech and telecom firms, a stance conflicting with that deregulatory agenda and an especially dangerous tinkering with the marketplace and peoples portfolios and 401(k)s in todays crisis-rocked world.

We could see it coming, though. As a candidate, Trump proclaimed, AT&T T is buying Time Warner, a deal that we will not approve in my administration because it is too much concentration of power in the hands of too few. We will look at breaking that deal up and other deals like it. The Justice Departments attempt to block the merger ultimately failed.

Similarly, Trump tweeted in 2018 thatComcast CMCSA may be violating antitrust laws. However, after mulling it over (such delays of business transactions themselves impose heavy regulatory costs, something Trump recognized with respect to infrastructure approvals during his July 2020 White House South Lawn deregulation celebration), the Justice Departmentultimately did not investigatethe Comcast-NBCUniversal alliance.

With respect to the big tech players in the hotseat now, the president said in 2018 that Google, Facebook, and Amazon may be in a very antitrust situation, and said he was in charge and looking at it. Even then, politicians and pundits across the political spectrum were calling for thebreakupof these companies. Forcible breakup calls for an even bigger entity to wield the axe, as noted; but one will not likely find that contradiction expressed in grillings.

Some Republicans wanted Twitter at the Judiciary hearing also. Trump fought bitterly earlier this year with that company and has on numerous occasions threatened to regulate social media. In May, he followed though by issuing an executive order targeting their alleged censorship.

The online speech debate and the antitrust debate are highly intertwined, and in addition to cutting big tech down to size, both the right and left want to change underlying rules that protect platforms from liability for user postings. This battle too will doubtlessly emerge at the hearing and continue thereafter.

While the Judiciary committee was conducting the months of investigations culminating in this weeks Super Bowl hearing, the administration was doing similarly. Back in early 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced a technology task force to assess tech sector antitrust violations and to go beyond current practice in scrutinizing transactions. In the wake of that, and in contrast to the administrations recognition of agency misuse of regulatory guidance documents elsewhere, the FTC is now in the process of drafting guidance on how the antitrust laws apply to the technology sector and defending its own role in policing it.

In other antitrust developments, this year, the FTC requested data from top tech companies on their business acquisitions over the last 10 years. The commission is also pondering an injunction against Facebooks procedures for interoperability across platforms, and is in the early stages of investigating Amazon, having started interviews in 2019 with businesses that sell on the site.

Still other signals point to a potentially expanding Trump administration antitrust agenda by the Department of Justice and FTC beyond big Internet tech firms. The FTC, for example, has been challenging an aquisition transaction in DNA sequencing.

While the DoJ and FTC did issue a Joint Antitrust Statement with respect to collaborative activities among firms during the pandemic, expedited advisory opinions still constitute playing Mother-May-I.

America may have some real troubles right now, but so-called monopoly power among competing firms in media and online sales and services are not threats to the country calling for coercive intervention from this unfortunate alliance of Democrats and Republicans.

The reality is that the infrastructure needed in tomorrows world of smart cities, autonomous vehicles, robotics and artificial intelligence, and space travel and more will require firms of far larger scale than any that we today call big tech and fret over.

These giants of the future will likewise be competitive non-monopolies, unless government grants them monopoly power or license.

Having just celebrated years of regulatory cuts at the White House, now would be a good time for President Trump back off his counterproductive flirtations with one of the worst forms of economic intervention, antitrust regulation. Congress? Thats not so simple.

See the rest here:

Antitrust Showdown In Congress: Big Tech, Meet Big Government - Forbes

Big tech is back in the spotlight.

The chief executives of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google testified before Congress on July 29 to defend their market dominance from accusations theyre stifling rivals. Lawmakers and regulators are increasingly talking about antitrust action and possibly breaking the companies up into smaller pieces.

I study the effects of digital technologies on lives and livelihoods across 90 countries. I believe advocates of breaking up big technology companies, as well as opponents, are both falling prey to some serious myths and misconceptions.

Arguments for and against antitrust action often use earlier cases as reference points.

The massive 19th-century monopoly Standard Oil, for example, has been referred to as the Google of its day. There are also people who are recalling the 1990s antitrust case against Microsoft.

Those cases may seem similar to todays situation, but this era is different in one crucial way: the global technology marketplace.

Currently, there are two big tech clusters. One is in the U.S., dominated by Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. The other is in China, dominated by Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei and TikTok-maker ByteDance.

This global market is subject to very different political and policy pressures than regulators faced when dealing with Standard Oil and Microsoft. For example, the Chinese government has blocked most of the U.S. companies from entering its market. And the U.S. government has done likewise, blacklisting some Chinese outfits over perceived national security threats while discouraging others.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the Chinese government has doubled down on championing its own technology companies.

U.S. companies size and data accumulation capabilities give the country economic and political influence around the globe. If the U.S. technology giants are broken up, the result would be a vastly uneven global playing field, pitting fragmented U.S. companies against consolidated state-protected Chinese firms.

There are two main views of antitrust action among legal experts.

One focuses on consumer welfare, which has been the prevailing approach federal lawyers have taken since the 1960s. The other suggests that regulators should look at the underlying structure of the market and potential for powerful players to exploit their positions.

Those two sides seem to agree that price plays a key role. People who argue against breaking up the tech giants point out that Facebook and Google provide services that are free to the consumer, and that Amazons marketplace power drives its products costs down. On the other side, though, are those who say that having low or no prices is evidence that these companies are artificially lowering consumer costs to draw users into company-controlled systems that are hard to leave.

Both sides are missing the fact that the monetary price is less relevant as a measure of what users pay in the technology industry than it is in other types of business. Users pay for digital products with their data, rather than just money.

Regulators shouldnt focus only on the monetary costs to the users. Rather, they should ask whether users are being asked for more data than is strictly necessary, whether information is being collected in intrusive or abusive ways and whether customers are getting good value in exchange for their data.

There arent just two ways for this debate to end, with either a breakup of one or more technology giants or simply leaving things as they are for the market to develop further.

In my view, the best outcome is right in the middle. The errant company is sued to make necessary changes but isnt broken up. The very fact that the government filed a lawsuit leads to progress with other companies. That is exactly what happened in past cases against the Bell System, IBM and Microsoft.

In the 1956 federal consent decree against the Bell System telephone company, for example, which settled a seven-year legal saga, the company wasnt split up. Instead, Bell was required to license all its patents royalty-free to other businesses. This meant that some of the most profound technological innovations in history including the transistor, the solar cell and the laser became widely available, yielding computers, solar power and other technologies that are crucial to the modern world. When the Bell System was eventually broken up in 1982, it did not do nearly as much to spread innovation and competition as the agreement that kept the Bells together a quarter-century earlier.

The antitrust action against IBM lasted 13 years and didnt break up the company. However, as part of its tactics to avoid appearing to be a monopoly, IBM agreed to separate pricing for its hardware and software products, previously sold as an indivisible bundle. This created an opportunity for entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Paul Allen to create a new software-only company called Microsoft. The surge of software innovations that have followed can clearly trace their origins to the IBM settlement.

Two decades later, Microsoft was itself the target of an antitrust action. In the resulting settlement, Microsoft agreed to ensure its products were compatible with competitors software. That made room in the emerging internet marketplace for web browsers, the predecessors of Apples Safari, Mozillas Firefox and Google Chrome.

Even Margrethe Vestager, the European Unions top antitrust official and frequent tech-giant nemesis, has said that antitrust prosecutions are part of how technology grows. But that doesnt mean they all have to achieve their most extreme ends and be broken up.

The current pandemic has highlighted the value of the technological innovations of the big tech companies.

Americans are relying more than ever on the internet and online shopping and delivery, while mobility data has been critical in gauging social distancing behaviors and guiding policy. Digital tools for tracking coronavirus cases, deaths and social distancing behaviors in the smallest counties have circulated widely, and social media and smartphone videos were crucial to the recent protests and calls for social justice.

Altogether, this has led to a softening of public opinion toward big tech and calls for an end to talk of breaking them up.

But the pandemic has also revealed numerous digital fault lines: differences in access by country, race and region; the ability of tech companies to exploit labor; and potential for new kinds of misuse of data.

Far from giving the technology industry a free pass, the pandemic is an opportunity to take a more balanced view. Yes, lets celebrate the Silicon Valleys value, but lets not turn a blind eye to the problems they create or worsen.

During the hearings, youll likely hear politicians accentuate the bad stuff, while the tech CEOs will paint an overly rosy image of themselves. Antitrust is complicated enough without misconceptions clouding their judgments as well.

This is an updated and expanded version of an article originally published on July 17, 2019.

Go here to read the rest:

Lawmakers keen to break up 'big tech' like Amazon and Google need to realize the world has changed a lot since Microsoft and Standard Oil - The...

The coronavirus pandemic might have slammed the broader market in the June quarter but tech isnt expected to have seen much effect on earnings.

For the sector, second-quarter earnings are expected to be down 10.9% on 0.3% lower revenues. But thats far better compared to the overall earnings picture. This is because total earnings for S&P 500 companies are projected to decline 42.9% on 9.6% lower revenues (read more: The Technology Sector Shows its Earnings Power Amid Coronavirus).

Thus, investors are now keeping an eye on four big tech companies in terms of market capitalization that are slated to report their June-quarter earnings on Jul 30, after the closing bell. Apple Inc. AAPL, Amazon.com, Inc. AMZN, Alphabet Inc. GOOGL and Facebook, Inc. FB worth nearly $5 trillion are mostly expected to come up with encouraging earnings results.

The big four are expected to have benefitted from the coronavirus-led shutdown measures as some of their businesses gained immensely from consumers, mostly working and learning from home. At the same time, these companies have been gaining immensely from secular trends like cloud computing and robust telecommunications infrastructure demand for which skyrocketed amid the health crisis.

The big four tech stocks along with Microsoft Corporation MSFT have in fact returned 49% over the past year, whereas the rest of the companies in the S&P 500 cohort have barely moved. Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist at Credit Suisse, noted that net margins of the big four and Microsoft taken together are 17.3% on average in the trailing 12 months, which is 70% higher than the rest of the S&P 500 companies. And profits of the five stocks were up 3.1% in the same period against a 9.2% decline for the other S&P 500 companies.

But if financial results for the to-be-reported quarter fall short of expectations, it could cause big market gyrations in after-hour trading and again on Jul 31. After all, their sheer size no doubt will have a big impact on the market and could easily decide whether the bourses will continue to hit new highs. Nevertheless, Golub has calmed investors concerns by saying that these companies have strong cash positions and their higher margins should certainly help them post better results in periods of market stress. Let us, thus, take a look at how they will fare this time around

One of the areas of Apples business that investors expect to have shone in the June quarter is the services segment. It has always been Apples most lucrative segment in terms of gross profit, and investors anticipate lockdown measures and social-distancing norms in the quarter to have fuelled rapid growth in the segment that includes the App Store and Apple Pay.

But Apples fortunes are heavily dependent on iPhone sales. And the companys fiscal third-quarter iPhone sales are believed to have remained muted due to sluggish demand in China. Thus, Apples sales are expected at $51.94 billion, indicating a year-over-year decline of 3.5%. Earnings per share are also likely to come in at $2.03, suggesting a 6.9% decline year over year. Traditionally, Apples third-quarter fiscal results are always the weakest. The Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) company currently has an Earnings ESP of +0.72%. Per our proven model, the combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 increases the chances of an earnings beat. You can see the complete list of todays Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

With majority of retail stores remaining closed in the June quarter, online sales picked up lockdown and social-distancing measures. Whats more, financial relief packages by the government and an uptick in employment rates increased disposable income in the quarter, something that boosted online sales.

Separately, Amazons focus on cloud computing might have improved the e-commerce giants financial results. This is because as majority of people remotely worked during the quarter ending June 2020, most companies had to move a bulk portion of their workloads to the cloud. The Zacks Rank #3 company currently has an Earnings ESP of +107.82%.

Story continues

The pandemic helped Facebook increase user engagement with its several social media platforms as people had to stay at home amid stringent lockdown measures imposed to curtail the spread of the deadly virus.

Therefore, Facebook is widely expected to have seen a surge in the usage of its services like Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp in the second quarter.

Thus, the companys expected revenues for the June quarter is $17.29 billion, indicating a year-over-year increase of 2.4%. Similarly, the company expects earnings per share of $1.44, indicating a 58.2% increase from the same period last year. Whats more, the Zacks Rank #3 company has an Earnings ESP of +4.86%.

The numbers werent encouraging for Alphabet in the first quarter. But three months later, Alphabets shares went up nearly 21%. So, what happened? This is because the stay-at-home economy in the second quarter buoyed Alphabets YouTube and Cloud services that provided home-based access to the outside world.

However, Alphabet had to bear significant costs in providing cloud services. Needless to say, rising litigations across the world due to its dominant position in search also remained a headwind in the June quarter. As a result, the Zacks Rank #3 company currently has an Earnings ESP of -1.12%.

Each was hand-picked by a Zacks expert as the #1 favorite stock to gain +100% or more in 2020. Each comes from a different sector and has unique qualities and catalysts that could fuel exceptional growth.

Most of the stocks in this report are flying under Wall Street radar, which provides a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor.

Today, See These 5 Potential Home Runs >>

Click to get this free report Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) : Free Stock Analysis Report Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) : Free Stock Analysis Report Apple Inc. (AAPL) : Free Stock Analysis Report Facebook, Inc. (FB) : Free Stock Analysis Report Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) : Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on Zacks.com click here. Zacks Investment Research

See the original post here:

All Eyes on Big Tech Earnings: Here's What to Expect - Yahoo Finance

As the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google prepare forhistorictestimony today in front of the House antitrust committee and withlegal chargesexpected soon I have a request: Before we dismiss the possibility of breaking them up, can we please stop comparing the worlds most powerful companies to eggs?

The current Chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission stated that after Facebook and Instagram have integrated their systems following their merger, splitting up the two social networks becomes more difficult because the eggs are scrambled. The U.S. Department of Justice antitrust chief under President Obama made a similar observation that it can be very difficult, or impossible, to unscramble the eggs. Over decades, references to this breakfast plate have repeatedly appeared in official speeches, scholarly articles, and judicial rulings.

The metaphor is misguided. Businesses routinely break themselves up. More than3,000 voluntary divestitures occur each year, amounting to abouta third of all mergers and acquisitions. Many are enormous. Not that long ago, Hewlett-Packard split itselfdown the middle to createtwo independent Fortune 100 companies. Last year Fox sold its movie business to Disney for$71 billion.

In other words, while most in the government and academia see breakups as radical and extreme, leading business executives see them as astandard part of corporate governance. I know because I have advised executives at several of the nations largest companies on massive reorganizations. If we must analogize monopolies to eggs, at the very least we should recognize that while nobody unscrambles eggs, we regularly carve up omelets after theyre prepared.

This seemingly harmless metaphor expresses a potentially devastating worldview that helps explain why the government has not broken up any of the largest U.S. companies since 1984. Thats when the Department of Justicesplit the AT&T monopoly into seven pieces, a move widely celebrated especially byconsumers who were paying over eight dollars for a five-minute call from Washington, D.C. to New York.

Today, however, even many leadingleft-leaning intellectualscalling for more aggressive antitrust enforcement opposesplitting up Big Tech due to breakups perceived messiness. They prefer other remedies, like mandating access. Access mandates leave the monopoly in place but require it to help competitors. For instance, rather than forcing Facebook to divest its previous acquisition, Instagram, the social network could be required to allow users to transfer their accounts or post simultaneously to other social networks.

One clear problem with this and other alternative remedies is that theyare unlikely to deter anticompetitive behavior. At trial,companies almost always fight for something other than breakups. Weaker remedies give CEOs incentives to build monopolies. Equally problematic is that these other remedies are extremely difficult and expensive. For example, requiring Amazon to share its platform fairly with competitors would require ongoing monitoring by the government over decades to ensure compliance.

In contrast, breakups are cleaner and cheaper because they provide a one-off event after which the government can move on. By instead pushing antitrust toward government-heavy remedies, the resistance to breakups leaves antitrust with only unattractive options. Unattractive remedies mean enforcers are less likely to take any action.

In other words, the animosity toward breakups has enfeebled the very institution of antitrust in America.

Of course, while breakups of Facebook and Instagram or Google and Waze may make sense, there are limits to how much some of these tech companies can be carved up without harming consumers. And antitrust breakups involve considerable costs in executing the reorganization. As a result, some caution is appropriate in choosing them as the remedy, and access mandates have a place in the antitrust arsenal. It would be a mistake to launch into an indiscriminate breakup rampage of all concentrated industries.

In weighing those costs, however, authorities should recognize that even private divestitures require tremendous organizational expenses. The key in both public and private breakups is not to let the inevitable reorganization costs prevent economic progress. In 1911, John D. Rockefellers lawyers argued that breaking up his oil monopoly would not only be dangerous to the industry, but calamitous to shareholders. Similar arguments were made before theAT&T breakup.

ButRockefellers wealth skyrocketed after the Standard Oil breakup, and AT&T shareholders who held onto their stock earnedhigh returns. Thats because buyers of broken up monopolies pay for the carved-up pieces. And smaller,nimbler companies can better adapt to changing markets. More importantly, nobody can deny thatthose U.S. industries subsequently flourished and led the world.

A better antitrust analogy would be to firefighting.The Forest Serviceregularly manages controlled burns, which prevent catastrophic wildfires and enable ecosystems to thrive. Occasional breakups that have costs in the short-term can help make markets healthier in the long run. The harms to our economy from large monopolies are far more certain than the speculative fears of messy breakups.

Rory Van Loo is a professor at Boston University and the author, most recently, ofIn Defense of Breakups: Administering a Radical Remedy. He previously advised multinational corporate executives on mergers and acquisitions. Follow him on Twitter @RoryVanLoo

Here is the original post:

Stop with the egg metaphor in discussing Big Tech break-ups | TheHill - The Hill

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr argues there is a growing and bipartisan consensus to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is in the spotlight after Google allegedly targeted conservative websites ZeroHedge and the Federalist.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., on Tuesday introduced a bill that would remove Section 230 protections for Big Tech companies that "display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them."

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act ensures internet platforms and social media websites are not held liable for content published by third-party users, which includeadvertisers.

"Big Techs manipulative advertising regime comes with a massive hidden price tag for consumers while providing almost no return to anyone but themselves," Hawley said in a Tuesday statement. "From privacy violations to harming children to suppression of speech, the ramifications are very real."

He added that the manipulative ads seen on social media and other platforms "are not what Congress had in mind when passing Section 230, and now is the time to put a stop to this abuse."

SHOULD SECTION 230 BE REVISED?

One example when a website used Section 230 to defend its role in publishing problematic ads to its platform is a 2015 lawsuit brought against Backpage owner Village Voice Media Holdings.The suit titled J.S. v. Village Voice alleges that Backpage.com posted advertisements that resulted in the sexual abuse of three underaged girls.

"J.S. allegedly was raped multiple times by adult customers who responded to the advertisements. J.S. filed a complaint alleging state law claims for damages against Backpage ... asserting claims for negligence, outrage, sexual exploitation of children, ratification/vicarious liability, unjust enrichment" and more, the case opinion from a Washington state courtreads.

WHAT IF SECTION 230 IS REVOKED?

Backpage tried to dismiss claims in thetrial court on the grounds of Section 230 immunity,but the court denied the move, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that Backpage helped develop the ads and was therefore subject to liability. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with Backpage.com in October 2017.

A person working on a laptop in North Andover, Mass. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File)

Hawley, a staunch critic of Big Tech and social media companies, also accused tech giants,in a press release announcing the proposed legislation,like Facebook and Google of tracking users without their consent for the purpose of profiting off ads

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Section 230 has sparked debate recently along party lines; some Democrats believe the law offers unjust protections to platforms that allow third-party users, including President Trump, to post problematic or harmful content, while some Republicans argue that the law protects social media companies that they allege actively seek to suppress certain political viewpoints or users.

Hawley, for example, introduced another Section 230-related bill in June that would require internet platforms to "submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral," according to a release.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

See the rest here:

Sen. Hawley introduces bill to remove Big Tech's Section 230 ad immunity - Fox Business

This hearing is timely and important, said Maurice Stucke, a former prosecutor in the Justice Departments antitrust division who now teaches law at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Its taking place not in isolation, but amid increased scrutiny of the dominant technology platforms from around the world.

Stucke believes the hearing is happening at a critical juncture, when authorities are beginning to grapple with the sweeping market power amassed by a handful of digital platforms, only to realize that current antitrust laws are inadequate and in need of change.

All four companies appearing at Wednesdays hearing are the targets of ongoing antitrust investigations by the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission or bipartisan coalitions of state attorneys general.

The emerging consensus is that first, antitrust scrutiny is a necessary but not sufficient component to address the multiple risks that these powerful platforms pose; second, the antitrust laws need to be updated; and third, we need to go beyond antitrust to a regulatory framework that addresses the risks posed to consumer protection and privacy, Stucke said.

But there are others who see the antitrust scrutiny of major technology companies as misplaced. Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, which advocates limited antitrust regulation of digital platforms, is skeptical of using antitrust enforcement to rein in or break up the companies, as some have suggested doing.

See the original post:

Big Tech antitrust hearing could be colossal or mere theater - Roll Call

Text size

With four of the five largest companies on the market set to report earnings on Thursday, and technology stocks lagging behind the market on several days over the past two weeks, you have likely read plenty about how Big Tech stocks are driving the market in 2020.

You may have heard comparisons made to the 2000 technology bubble, and dire predictions about how the current run-up in tech stocks will end just as badly for investors.

The combined market capitalization of Alphabet (ticker: GOOGL), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Facebook (FB), and Microsoft (MSFT) is 22% of the S&P 500. Thats a lot. In fact, it is more than the 18% share that the five most-valuable companies commanded at the tech bubble peak in March 2000. Back then, Microsoft, Cisco (CSCO), General Electric (GE), Intel (INTC), and Exxon Mobil (XOM) were the top dogs by market cap.

And just like in 2000, the five Big Tech stocks have trounced the market over the past year. They are up 49% on average, while the rest of the S&P 500 is about flat. Thats a big gap.

So it must be a bubble right? No so fast. Credit Suisse chief U.S. equity strategist Jonathan Golub said in a report on Monday that the comparisons to the tech bubbleand predictions of a coming crasharent justified by a comparison of the companies fundamentals. The top five stocks today make up a larger share of S&P 500 earningswith faster relative projected growththan they did in March 2000. And they trade for a cheaper valuation multiple than the top five did back then, too.

While a nearly 50% performance advantage over 12 months is obviously significant, about three-quarters of that outperformance can be explained by superior earnings. Earnings drive stock prices in the long run, after all.

The comparison to the tech bubble peak falls apart more on the fundamentals as well, according to Golub. In March 2000, the top five stocks in the S&P 500 posted earnings and sales growth of 18.0% and 16.8%, respectively, over the preceding 12 months. That compared with 15.4% and 12.1%, respectively, for the other 495 S&P 500 companies. The big five of 2000 were ahead for sure, but not by leaps and bounds.

Newsletter Sign-up

Every weekday evening we highlight the consequential market news of the day and explain what's likely to matter tomorrow.

Today, Alphabet, Amazon.com, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft are sitting on 3.1% earnings growth over the past four reported quarters, while the remainder of the S&P 500 have seen earnings contract by 9.2%. The revenue gap is also wide: 11.2% growth for Big Tech and just 0.8% for the rest.

Andsignificant in times of market stress and volatility like the current environmentthe biggest five companies today have net cash positions on their balance sheets and much wider profit margins than the rest of the S&P 500 and the big five of 2000. That means they can withstand shocks much better, and justifies premium valuations and performance in a down market.

For Golub, that means the big can continue getting bigger.

The conclusion seems quite clear, todays larger names are superior on almost every financial metric including revenue and profit growth, margin structure, volatility, and corporate leverage, Golub wrote on Monday. As such, we wouldnt be surprised to see the performance gap widen even further.

Write to Nicholas Jasinski at nicholas.jasinski@barrons.com

Continued here:

Big 5 Tech Stocks Have Trounced the Market. So Have Their Fundamentals. - Barron's

Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineHillicon Valley: House panel grills tech CEOs during much anticipated antitrust hearing | TikTok to make code public as it pushes back against 'misinformation' | House Intel panel expands access to foreign disinformation evidence Five takeaways as panel grills tech CEOs Cicilline grills Zuckerberg on coronavirus misinformation: This is 'about Facebook's business model' MORE (D-R.I.), the chairman of a panel hearing testimony Wednesday from CEOs of four of the nation's largest tech companies, compared Americas biggest tech companies to historic monopolies such as AT&T and Microsoft during his opening statement.

"When the American people confronted monopolists in the past be it the railroads and oil tycoons or AT&T and Microsoft we took action to ensure no private corporation controls our economy or our democracy, he said.

Cicilline, who has led the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust's yearlong investigation into tech companies, also described the biggest platforms asemperors of the online economy.

He argued that the power of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google haslimited consumer choice and stunted innovation.

And while these dominant firms may still produce some new innovative products, their dominance is killing the small businesses, manufacturing and overall dynamism that are the engines of the American economy, he said, pre-empting a likely defense from the executives.

Cicilline also noted that the coronavirus pandemic has intensified reliance on tech companies, which have seen their market values swell while the rest of the economy has suffered.

He also outlined some of the competition issues that link the companies, which some experts say should have testified separately because of the unique antitrust cases against them.

First, each platform is a bottleneck for a key channel of distribution, he said. "Second, each platform uses its control over digital infrastructure to surveil other companies their growth, business activity and whether they might pose a competitive threat.

Third, he continued, these platforms abuse their control over current technologies to extend their power. Whether its through self-preferencing, predatory pricing, or requiring users to buy additional products, the dominant platforms have wielded their power in destructive, harmful ways in order to expand.

See more here:

Top antitrust Democrat opens hearing by comparing big tech firms to past monopolies | TheHill - The Hill

Marta L. Tellado, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET July 29, 2020

We would never tolerate age, sex or race discrimination at a grocery store or car lot, but we have allowed it to run rampant in the digital world.

The leaders of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have some serious explaining to do about bias and discrimination when they appear Wednesday at an antitrust hearingbefore the House Judiciary Committee.

The abuse of trust by the platform-based companies we rely on most has largely flown under the radar as a global pandemic heightens and highlights fissures in our society.But our data and our choices continue to be manipulated in problematic ways often by algorithms that subtly introduce bias into the prices we pay and the information and options made available to us. It is essential that we hold our digital gatekeepers accountable.

The algorithms at issue have a veritable fire hose of our data at their disposal,and they arent the neutral equations we might assume them to be. They are the product of humans, and because of that they have a tendency to perpetuate human biases.

To cite just three examples:

In 2017, Consumer Reports and ProPublica discovered that drivers living in predominantly minority urban neighborhoods were charged higher auto insurance premiums on average than drivers with similar safety records in nonminority neighborhoods with comparable levels of risk.

In 2018, software created by Amazon to help companies identify the most promising job candidates was discovered to be biased against women, according to Reuters. The algorithm had learned to spot "good" rsums on a diet of examples heavily skewed toward males.

Apples new credit card came under investigation in November, after a customer complained that its lending algorithm offered him a line of credit 20 times higher than it offered his wife even though hercredit score was better than his.

We would never tolerate that sort of blatant discrimination if it happened at a neighborhood grocery store or a car lot, but we have quietly allowed it run rampant in the digital marketplace without oversight or accountability.

A smartphone screen with GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) apps on September 28, 2017, in Hd-Bazouges, France.(Photo: Damien Meyer/AFP via Getty Images)

A follow-up joint investigation recently conducted by Consumer Reports and The Markup revealed how better data can alter the power relationship between company and consumer. The latest example of how algorithms, however unintentionally, negatively affect our lives and our pocketbooks: Allstate, the fourth largest auto insurer in the country, proposed big premium hikes exclusively for customers whoits formulas concluded were less likely than others to shop around.

In targeting what the investigation concluded was a suckers list of drivers deemed by an algorithm to be less likely to switch providers, Allstate used factors that have nothing to do with consumers driving records and their risk for filing a claim.In this case, it was middle-ageconsumers who ended up being discriminated against for no reason other than their shopping tendencies. The result was they wereovercharged quite a bit more for the same coverage.

Tech fail:He was arrested because of a computer error. Now he wants to fix the system.

Facial recognition algorithms used in police departments have been found to misidentify African American and Asian faces up to 100 times as often as Caucasian faces, leading to false arrests and baseless confrontations.

Boston is among the municipalities that have recently taken steps to prevent facial recognition technology from being used by city agencies, including the police. Amazon has imposed a one-year suspension on the sale of its Rekognition software to law enforcement.

Progress has been made on this front in part because of efforts byJoy Buolamwini, a computer scientist and founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, and others to call attention to the very real potential harms of this technology.

In the years ahead, algorithms are poised to influence an ever larger share of what we pay, receive, see, learn and decide between from the cost of goods and services to the headlines and search results that do and do not make it into our personal feeds.As their influence rises, the question becomes more critical: How can we guard against algorithmic biases and hold our tech giants accountable for maintaining fairness in the digital marketplace?

So far, we havent pursued policies to ensure that fairness,or even transparency for that matter. We havent created avenues of recourse for consumers who get the short end of the stick. Wealso know that industry thus far cant be counted on to self-regulate in many cases, they arent even aware that potential discrimination is going on until after journalists or customers happen to unravel it.Too often, the watchdogs arent watching closely enough.

Failure to enforce: Despite COVID-19 pandemic, tech giants still profit from anti-vaccination movement

The good news is that consumers hold tremendous power to set us on a better path. By wielding our collective influence, we can press for policymakers to enact new laws and standards to bring fairness and transparency to the hidden world of algorithms. Companies should not be permitted to use "proxy" data, like users' ZIPcodes or credit scores, in algorithms where it isn't relevant these are data points that frequently lead to discriminatory outputs. And we need vigorous oversight and enforcement of laws that prohibit bias.

As the CEOs of the most powerful tech companies take questions, we must get answers on platform accountability and plans to limit discrimination. Many biases may still be hardwired in our society, but that doesnt mean we have to sit idly by as they replicate themselves in the digital economy. It is within our power and, indeed, it is our responsibility to ensure that the digital world evolves in the direction of greater fairness and greater trust.

Marta L. Tellado is the president and chief executive officer of Consumer Reports. Follow her on Twitter: @MLTellado

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/29/big-tech-abuses-consumers-stop-online-discrimination-column/5525703002/

Read more from the original source:

Biased Big Tech algorithms limit our lives and choices. Stop the online discrimination. - USA TODAY

This week on The Vergecast, The Verges Nilay Patel, Dieter Bohn, Makena Kelly, and Casey Newton join a Zoom call to discuss the upcoming big congressional antitrust Zoom call featuring CEOs from Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google.

Though the hearing is likely to be postponed (that news came after this episode was recorded), the discussion is still relevant. Signaling a big move to regulate Silicon Valley, the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee will talk to Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai about their potential monopoly powers in the digital marketplace and social media. The Vergecast crew discusses what to expect at the event, the likelihood of legislation as a result of the hearing, and how various investigations factor into the future of Big Tech regulation.

Also, in the middle of the show, games editor Andrew Webster and reporter Megan Farokhmanesh stop by to give us a brief breakdown of what was announced at the Xbox Games Showcase from the new Halo game to the growing significance of Microsofts Xbox Game Pass subscription model.

Theres a whole lot more in between all of that like some of the weeks latest gadget rumors so listen through here or in your preferred podcast player to hear it all.

Stories from this week:

See the original post:

Vergecast: Big Tech antitrust hearing preview and the Xbox Games Showcase breakdown - The Verge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A much-anticipated deep dive into antitrust allegations against four of Americas largest tech companies and recommendations on how to tame their market power could be released by late summer or early fall from the House of Representatives Judiciary Committees antitrust panel, senior committee aides said.

FILE PHOTO: The logos of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are seen in a combination photo from Reuters files. REUTERS

The committee has received 1.3 million documents from the companies so far, they said in a call with reporters on Thursday.

The panel will question the CEOs of Facebook Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Google parent Alphabet Inc and Apple Inc as part of its investigation into whether the companies business practices hurt smaller rivals. The hearing was supposed to be held on July 27 but has been delayed.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that the chief executives will defend themselves by saying their companies face intense competition and by pushing back against claims they are dominant.

All four companies will testify voluntarily and no subpoenas have been issued, the committee aides said.

In May, Representative David Cicilline, chair of the Judiciary Committees antitrust panel, had demanded Jeff Bezos testify and threatened Amazon with a subpoena, after reports surfaced Amazon employees tapped data from small sellers in the companys marketplace to make decisions about the online retailer launching its own competing products, despite telling lawmakers it did not engage in such practices.

Addressing questions about the format of the high-profile hearing, the aides said, there will be a single panel with all four CEOs attending virtually. Members of the subcommittee led by Cicilline, however, will attend either in person or online.

The number of rounds of questioning is up to the discretion of the chair, said one committee aide.

Asked if the hearing would uncover new information, a senior aide said that despite the risk of companies not always answering questions fully it was important to hear from decision makers.

This is not like a normal oversight hearing, where we hear from the CEOs and move on.

Reporting by Nandita Bose in Washington, Editing by Chris Sanders and David Gregorio

Read more:

Big tech antitrust probe report from Congress likely by early fall - Reuters

School's not even in session and the Huskies are topping the college COVID-19 charts. LESTER BLACK

Proposed Navy testing program could harm the orcas: Washington state head honchos are pushing back against a new Navy training program that would cover the West Coast. According to the Seattle Times the military exercises for the Navy would range from "testing torpedoes to firing projectiles from a gun into the sea at seven times the speed of sound, to piloting mine-detecting undersea drones, deploying underwater sonar and exploding up to 1,000-pound bombs at sea." The Navy has assured that no orcas would be killed during the program. Other marine animals? No promises.

Sponsored

He took on Trump to protect our Democratic values. It's time for his proven progressive leadership.

A Lynnwood drug bust: Officers found $19 million in fentanyl in a Lynnwood home. There was also meth and heroin, the Everett Herald reports. A couple was arrested.

Another warm day: Expect some 80-degree weather. Drink your water.

But 11 years ago it was the hottest day ever:

Nevada sheriff tells local library to fuck off: The Douglas County sheriff wrote an open letter entirely about how the Douglas County Public Library staff could get bent and that the sheriff would no longer be responding to their 911 calls since the library supported Black Lives Matter. The letter was nearly identical in some sections to the letter "conservative attorney generals and the Western States Sheriffs Association sent to congressional leaders last month," the Nevada Independent reports.

Over 100 police agencies pull out of the Democratic National Convention: Next month's DNC event will be held in Milwaukee. The police departments that signed on to beef up security at the event are having second thoughts because the local jurisidiction in Milwuakee just banned its police department from using tear gas on crowds.

Here's the NYPD kidnapping a protester: Plain clothes officers snatched a protester off the street and pushed them into an unmarked van. After the video of the arrest (?) went viral, the NYPD released a statement saying the protester was taken in by the Warrant Squad for "damaging police cameras during five separate criminal incidents in and around City Hall Park."

The U.S. will pull feds from Portland if...: Oregon agrees to step up its own enforcement. There's no agreement yet.

Meanwhile: Portland fights back.

Big Tech goes to Washington (D.C.): The antitrust panel of the House Judiciary Committee has been investigating Big Tech for the last year where the committee has "at least 1.3 million documents from the testifying companies, held five public hearings, and conducted hundreds of hours of interviews." Today, for the first time, all the CEOs from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will testify on the same panel at the same time. It's trust bustin' time.

The Verge breaks down how the companies could defend themselves: Their opening statements are already live and they're all basically the same. It's all about the American Dream and competition of the free market, baby. Here's where you can watch today's 9 a.m. hearing:

There are 6,300 COVID-19 cases at about 270 colleges in the U.S.: And the next academic year hasn't even started. The University of Washington is near the top of the infected list with 249 cases. The University of Georgia has 390 cases and Central Florida University has a whopping 438 cases. The winner (?) is the University of Texas with 449 cases, though. The New York Times calls the data they amassed "almost certainly an undercount." How are kids supposed to return to campus this fall when the virus has already moved in?

Texas representative catches the virus: GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert has tested positive for COVID-19. Gohmert refused to wear a mask in the Capitol. He said that if he got the virus then he'd put a mask on. He's the seventh representative to test positive.

Oof: Things are bad in Florida.

Coronavirus survivors suffer heart damage: Around three quarters of people who have recovered from COVID-19 reportedly have heart damage.

Man breaks into Canada through Kettle Falls, Washington: He evaded American officers in a stolen car, ditched that after ramming through border barriers, took off on foot, Canadian police tried to arrest him later but he jumped into a river and floated down it for two-and-a-half hours before he was finally arrested.

Republican Senator David Perdue of Georgia allegedly doctored a photo of his competition: Perdue has pulled a campaign ad that made his rival, Jon Ossoff, who is Jewish, appear to have a bigger nose. The text read: "Democrats are trying to buy Georgia! Help David Perdue fight back!" Yikes.

In case you missed the hell we're living in: Here's a picture. The background is that Trump continues to defend a doctor espousing COVID-19 conspiracies who also believes in "demon sperm."

Hey, don't forget: There's a free crossword for you to do right here.

Sponsored

What are YOUR favorite HUMP! films? Start with HUMP! Greatest Hits, Volume One! Relive the memories!

Read the rest here:

Slog AM: Big Tech's Anti-Trust Hearing, COVID-19 Goes to College, Boeing Is Boned - TheStranger.com

I got an epiphany for my birthday, after a conversation I had with our management at TheBlaze this week about the future of our industry.

I believe the No. 1 issue in the country is Big Tech censorship. It is the issue that will determine the future, because this is how information gets distributed in our culture.

Martin Luther was perhaps the most important man in the last millennium and changed the world to this day, but only because Gutenberg invented the printing press that provided him the means to do so. Without that, Luther is just another martyred would-be reformer lost to history. Without that platform, Luther's 95 Theses don't survive the week, let alone 500 years and counting.

Imagine living in Bible times, and your views weren't permitted at the City Gate where community business/information was done and made. Imagine being denied access to the world the telephone opened up because of your views. You are essentially relegated to cultural serfdom.

In our time, Big Tech is those things. Except they not only are distributing the information we see, but deciding the information we see as well and doing so while selling our personal information for profit and collecting it for their own use. This is perhaps the most sweeping and dangerous monopoly in the history of market-based economies.

It's the equivalent of Ma Bell a century ago deciding who gets a telephone based on whether you align with their corporate views, and then deciding what you get to hear when you answer the phone.

If Big Tech censorship is permitted to go on unchallenged, you're looking at a new Dark Ages when it comes to the information age. You can have all the conservative, religious, traditional, or even radical views you want, but if you're cut off from the world with them it doesn't matter. You have no means to bring them to light. You are not an influencer. You basically don't even exist. You're off the grid.

In this scenario, the American church becomes like the church in China. People are still getting saved underground, because God's Word does not return void, but above ground its cultural influence/impact are null and void.

And don't think for a second that isn't the end game here, and we're in that end game now.

And no, it's not as simple as "go build your own Facebook then." You cannot. All the means by which you would bring such a product to market is all controlled by the same Big Tech giants trying to control us now. Go ask the CEO of Parler what it took to get the alternative to Twitter listed in the app stores, for example I have. And those restrictions will only grow harder to navigate as these Big Tech companies become increasingly politically aggressive.

See, the same Big Tech that owns a monopoly on the distribution of information is approaching monopoly status on the means of information production, too. And once they reach critical mass on that front, it is game over.

Big Tech as a private industry has grown beyond our traditional small government creeds we lost on every front already anyway, when you look at the size and scope of government even if Big Tech never existed. Denying the reality of what's happening here on small government grounds is like denying you're pregnant in the delivery room. Since we already lost every small government argument anyway, we set the stage for a behemoth like Big Tech to arise.

No, it's not about small government. It's about alternative government, because that's what Big Tech is forming. Or, at the very least, an alternative ecosystem that will determine who gets to serve in the government we have.

What we're witnessing here is a hostile takeover of a country. Albeit one that looks different from how it historically has. There will be no tanks down main street. There will be no book burnings and mass cancellations. There will be no riots spilling over into outright insurrection. Nor will there be jack-booted thugs knocking on our doors.

Because when all these things happen, Big Tech won't permit you to see it.

View original post here:

Commentary: Big Tech is engaged in a hostile takeover of our country - TheBlaze.com

Big tech CEO's--including Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Alphabet--have agreed to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee which is probing antitrust issues Wednesday.

The hearing was previously scheduled for Monday, but was rescheduled due to the funeral proceedings of the late U.S. representative John Lewis.

Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jeff Bezos, of Amazon are set to appear.

The major technology companies have been facing investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as well as state attorneys general, over concerns about their dominance of key growth areas of the economy.

Among issues under examination is the use of major tech platforms to put competitors at a disadvantage. The companies also face concerns over failures to protect user privacy and over their failure to control the spread of disinformation and hate speech on their platforms.

Federal antitrust investigations of the companies began gathering steam last year. Similar probes have been launched by European regulators In recent weeks, Apple has come under fire for fees charged to developers using its in-app purchasing system.

Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who is newer to the politics of Capitol Hill, is expected to face questions on Amazon's e-commerce dominance as well as private label products.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg will likely see the company's handling of problematic content in focus.

While the testimonies will certainly make news, Jim Cramer said he isn't so worried about shareholders. "Everybody wants to investigate these companies...but what are you going to do?" Cramer asked.

Cramer said at the end of the day, he's more worried about the employees of big tech than investors.

And don't expect big tech to exit the headlines any time soon. All four companies are also expected to report quarterly results Thursday.

What are you watching as big tech takes the podium? Tell us in the comments below.

See original here:

Big Tech to Testify: What Jim Cramer Is Watching - TheStreet

The New York TimesJul 23, 2020 12:33:50 IST

Apple on Tuesday became the latest tech giant to promise to do more to reduce the emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, announcing in a statement that, by 2030, every Apple device sold will have net-zero climate impact.

Apple said it aimed to reduce emissions by 75% in its manufacturing chain, including by recycling more of the components that go into each device and nudging its suppliers to use renewable energy. As for the remaining 25% of emissions, the company said it planned to balance them by funding reforestation projects.

Forests absorb carbon dioxide, and reforestation has become a popular way for companies to offset the greenhouse gas emissions that they produce, including from factories.

Climate advocates describe these offset efforts as inadequate because they allow emissions to grow at a time when the scientific consensus demands that emissions be cut in half by 2030 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change and be reduced to zero by 2050.

Separately Tuesday, Microsoft announced that it would require its suppliers to report their emissions, as a first step toward making reductions.

Like other corporate pledges, both are entirely voluntary.

It feels like theres a virtuous follow-the-leader thing happening here, said Simon Nicholson, co-director for the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University.

He noted the limitations of the pledge, though. What Apple has signaled here is the beginning of a strategy on the carbon-removal side, Nicholson said. Holding carbon in forests for a year or two isnt going to cut it. It needs to be held in forests for the long term, which means centuries.

Big Techs role in global warming varies from company to company. Amazon, Facebook and Google all use enormous amounts of energy and water for their data centers. Amazon relies on gas-guzzling trucks and packages that themselves have a huge environmental footprint; even recycling uses a lot of energy. And makers of devices like Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft produce greenhouse gas emissions through their supply chains, which involve contractors that do the actual manufacturing in different parts of the world.

The pressure on companies to do something about their climate footprint comes both from within the ranks of their employees and from advocacy groups on the outside.

Not only are they under scrutiny for the emissions they produce. Internet companies, like Facebook, have been criticized for allowing the spread of disinformation about climate science. Greenpeace took aim at Google, Microsoft and Amazon for using their artificial intelligence and cloud computing services to help oil producers find and extract oil and gas deposits, which Greenpeace said is significantly undermining the tech companies other climate commitments.

One by one, the giants of Silicon Valley have been compelled to address their own role in the climate crisis.

Google said in May it would no longer build customized artificial intelligence technology or machine learning algorithms for the oil and gas sector. It has also pledged to include recycled material in its devices, including its popular Chromebook computers, by 2022.

Amazon announced last September its bid to be carbon-neutral by 2040, while its chief executive, Jeff Bezos, committed $10 billion to fund climate science and advocacy.

Amazons move came after sustained calls from its own employees to reduce emissions to zero by 2030, a full 10 years earlier than the companys current target. Its employees also pressed Bezos to stop offering custom cloud-computing services to the oil and gas industry and to suspend campaign donations to politicians who deny climate science.

Amazon continues to do business with fossil fuel companies, but Bezos said the company would take a hard look at its political donations. Amazon said it would reduce its climate change impact by, among other things, buying a fleet of 100,000 electric delivery trucks. But, like Apple, Amazons pledge to be net-zero by 2040 relies on reforestation projects to offset its continuing emissions.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announces new electronic delivery rickshaw fleet for India.

Microsoft this year said it would draw down more emissions than it adds and also somehow remove all the emissions the company has ever produced. It promised to invest $1 billion in what it called climate innovations, but it left untouched its partnerships with oil and gas companies.

Facebook announced that it would use 100% renewable energy in its facilities and reduce water use in its data centers, though it has said little about what it will do to stop the spread of climate disinformation on its platform.

Apples net-zero pledge is notable in that it seeks to address the main source of its greenhouse gas emissions: from the manufacturing of its phones, tablets and computers by its contractor companies.

Apples statement on Tuesday underscored the need for businesses like it to pivot away from fossil fuels for the sake of its own bottom line. We have a generational opportunity, said Lisa Jackson, a company vice president responsible for environmental issue, to help build a greener and more just economy, one where we develop whole new industries in the pursuit of giving the next generation a planet worth calling home.

Elizabeth Jardim, who works on corporate issues at Greenpeace USA, cautiously welcomed the pledge as a step up from the companys previous commitments, noting in an email that as with all carbon neutral or carbon negative goals, it is critical to see detailed plans for how the company will pursue deep decarbonization rather than a reliance on offsetting or weak nature-based carbon removal initiatives.

Jardim also urged large, profitable companies to throw their weight behind policies like the Green New Deal.

On Twitter, Edward Maibach, of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, called the Apple pledge a big step in the right direction, if they make good on it. Next, they should lobby governments worldwide to increase their commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Somini Sengupta and Veronica Penney. c.2020 The New York Times Company

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

Read the original:

Apple, Google, Amazon, other Big Tech companies have a climate problem; now being forced to clean up - Firstpost

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies via video before the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. The hearing also featured the heads of Apple, Facebook and Google. Mandel Ngan/POOL/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies via video before the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. The hearing also featured the heads of Apple, Facebook and Google.

Updated at 3:59 p.m. ET

Are Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple "emperors of the online economy" that stifle competition and hurt consumers? Not surprisingly, the tech giants' chief executives told Congress: absolutely not. The concern that too much power is concentrated in too few companies is unfounded, they said Wednesday.

CEO vows Google won't play favorites in 2020 election

Google CEO Sundar Pichai faced a barrage of questions from Rep. Jim Jordan. The Ohio Republican's said he's concerned that Google will tailor its search engine to give a leg up to presumed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden over President Trump in searches related to the November election.

When Jordan asked Pichai for a promise to Americans that Google will not favor Biden in the 2020 election, Pichai said "we don't do any work to politically tilt anything one way or another."

Jordan persisted with the same question.

Pichai, eventually, agreed to make a commitment that Google will not tilt its features to help Biden and that the search engine will not be used to silence conservatives.

Watch the live stream here.

"Yeah, you have my commitment. It's always been true and we'll continue to conduct ourselves in a neutral way," Pichai said.

It's a line of inquiry that is far afield from the purpose of the hearing, noted Pennsylvania Democrat Mary Gay Scanlon, saying she'd like to turn the focus back to antitrust, rather than "fringe conspiracy theories."

This incited Jordan, who interrupted Scanlon, launching a screaming match between Jordan and Democratic leadership about following the rules of the hearing.

"When someone comes after my motives for asking questions," shouted Jordan, "I should get a chance to respond."

-- Bobby Allyn

Does Amazon use sellers' data to help itself?

The first inquiry for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos finally arrived from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., some two hours into the hearing. In detailed substantive questions, she zeroed in on the subcommittee's central concern about Amazon: Does the company use the data it collects from other sellers on the platform for its benefit?

"I can't answer that question yes or no," Bezos said, explaining that Amazon had "certain safeguards" including a policy against this kind of use of seller-specific data. However, he said he could not "guarantee that the policy has not been violated."

Committee lawmakers have previously accused Amazon of "lack of candor" about how it might be using other sellers' data to boost its own business. Critics have made the case, for example, that Amazon employees may have used such data to create the retailer's own private-label products, which Bezos told lawmakers the company was still investigating.

"You can set the rules for your competitors but not actually follow the rules yourself," Jayapal said. "You have access to data that your competitors do not have," she continued, adding that if Amazon was "continuously monitoring" such data to make sure that other sellers "are never going to get big enough that they can compete with you that is the concern that the committee has."

--Alina Selyukh

Google's Pichai is pressed on being "the gateway to the Internet"

Subcommittee Chairman Cicilline spent all of his first 5-minute block of questions on Google the company at most immediate risk of actual antitrust action. The Department of Justice is reportedly preparing to sue the company over its advertising business, and could be joined by state attorneys general who have also been investigating Google.

Cicilline pressed CEO Sundar Pichai on whether Google's business model presents a conflict of interest, because it has an incentive to give search results that keep users on its own site rather than anywhere else on the Internet.

"As Google became the gateway to the Internet, it began to abuse its power," Cicilline said.

Pichai responded that Google "always focuses on providing users the most relevant information." Cicilline appeared annoyed at Pichai's answers, cutting him off several times to move to another question.

--Shannon Bond

Still waiting for questions for Jeff Bezos

Over an hour-and-a-half into the hearing, Jeff Bezos appearing in Congress for the first time, whose company employs a million workers and has over 150 million paying subscribers has yet to receive a single question.

His presence was slated to become a powerful accomplishment of the House Judiciary Committee, but the questioning so far has left him muted on the live video feed, reaching for some snacks.

The hearing, meanwhile, is taking a 10-minute break to fix a technical problem "with one of our witnesses."

--Alina Selyukh

Did Facebook buy Instagram to neutralize a competitor?

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., pressed Facebook's Zuckerberg on exactly why his company bought Instagram for $1 billion back in 2012. That's a key part of competition questions facing the social media giant. Critics accuse Facebook of buying or copying rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition.

Nadler said in its investigation, the committee got documents from Facebook in which Zuckerberg discussed "neutralizing a competitor" as a reason to pursue Instagram.

"Facebook saw Instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from Facebook. And so rather than compete with it, Facebook bought it," Nadler said.

Zuckerberg points out that the Federal Trade Commission okayed the merger at the time. "With hindsight it probably looks obvious that Instagram would have reached the scale that it has today, but at the time it was far from obvious," he said.

Cicilline interjected to say that the "failures" of the FTC in 2012 do not mean it was not a violation of antitrust law.

--Shannon Bond

Panel chairman: Under coronavirus, big tech "likely to emerge stronger and more powerful"

Up first is Rhode Island Democrat David Cicilline, chairman of the antitrust subcommittee that's holding this hearing. He is the driving force behind the year-long investigation of big tech.

In his opening remarks, he describes the dominance of each company: Amazon in online shopping, Apple in smartphones and apps, Facebook in social media and Google in search and ads. And he points out that thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, all four "are likely to emerge stronger and more powerful than ever before."

"As American families shift more of their work, shopping, and communication online, these giants stand to profit. Locally owned businesses, meanwhile mom and pop stores on Main Street face an economic crisis unlike any in recent history," Cicilline said.

The committee's investigation has turned up a pattern among the tech giants, he said. They control access to information and marketplaces, use that control to "surveil" rivals and protect their power, and favor their own businesses.

"Simply put: They have too much power," Cicilline said. For consumers, he said, this is reminiscent of previous American monopolies: railroads, oil and telephone companies, and even another tech giant Microsoft.

"This investigation also goes to the heart of whether we, as a people, govern ourselves, or whether we let ourselves be governed by private monopolies," he said. "Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy."

--Shannon Bond

Republican Jim Jordan: "Big Tech is out to get conservatives"

Wednesday's hearing is supposed to be about Big Tech's power and market dominance. But Republicans are already trying to make it about something else: accusations that online platforms are biased against conservatives.

"Big Tech is out to get conservatives," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in his fiery opening statement.

Jordan then rapidly read aloud headlines making claims that conservative-leaning publications and voices have been suppressed or censored on Facebook and Google.

He also mentioned Twitter, even though it is not part of the hearing. Jordan said conservative members of Congress were "shadow banned" on Twitter. He said Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey said it was a glitch.

"If I had a nickel for every time I heard it was just a glitch, I wouldn't be as wealthy as our witnesses, but I'd be doing right," Jordan said.

"We all think the free market is great. We think competition is great. We love the fact that these are American companies. But what's not great is censoring people, censoring conservatives and trying to impact election," Jordan said. ""If it doesn't end, there has to be consequences."

Before Jordan's remarks, Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner also mentioned the belief, strongly contested by large tech companies, that conservatives do not get a fair shake by the online platforms, calling reports of conservative censorship troubling.

"Conservatives are consumers, too, and they need the protection of antitrust laws," Sensenbrenner said.

The hearing erupted in chaos after Jordan asked that Rep. Mike Johnson of the House Judiciary's Constitution subcommittee be allowed to participate in the hearing. The request was denied.

Jordan then repeatedly interrupted antitrust subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, who was attempting to introduce Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

"We're talking about peoples' liberties here," Jordan said over Cicilline.

"Put your mask on," Jordan was told.

--Bobby Allyn

Trump tweets: 'Bring fairness to Big Tech'

The hearing has gotten underway, after an hour-long delay. First up, we will get opening statements from the top members of the committee and the four CEOs. Then lawmakers will each get five minutes to question Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg. All four will be joining remotely, via video.

The focus of the hearing, and the committee's investigation, is competition but expect lawmakers to be unable to resist bringing up other complaints about tech companies, from election security and the spread of misinformation to alleged anti-conservative bias.

That's also the message coming from the White House, where President Trump has repeatedly accused tech companies of treating him unfairly. Shortly after noon, he tweeted: "If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders. In Washington, it has been ALL TALK and NO ACTION for years, and the people of our Country are sick and tired of it!"

--Shannon Bond

Our original story by Bobby Allyn continues:

Amid a time of rising tensions with China, some of the powerful CEOs will suggest that too much regulation could provide an opportunity for Chinese tech firms to gain a global toehold, according to opening remarks from the tech leaders released by the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

"We believe in values democracy, competition, inclusion and free expression that the American economy was built on," Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg will tell lawmakers, according to his prepared opening statement. "China is building its own version of the internet focused on very different ideas, and they are exporting their vision to other countries."

Amazon's Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person who will be making his first-ever appearance in front of Congress, will bring in his personal story of being adopted by an immigrant father when he was 4 years old and spending his summers on his grandparents' ranch in Texas, saying his upbringing instilled in him a work ethic that has helped Amazon prosper.

Amazon's rise to becoming the largest online retailer, Bezos will say, is an achievement only made possible in America. But Walmart, he will point out, is still twice the size of Amazon.

"We did not start out as the largest marketplace eBay was many times our size. It was only by focusing on supporting sellers and giving them the best tools we could invent that we were able to succeed and eventually surpass eBay," Bezos says in his released testimony.

Google's Sundar Pichai will steer attention to the other ways people navigate the online world, even though 90% of Internet searches happen on Google.

"People have more ways to search for information than ever before and increasingly this is happening outside the context of only a search engine," Pichai plans to tell the House panel. "You can ask Alexa a question from your kitchen; read your news on Twitter; ask friends for information via WhatsApp; and get recommendations on Snapchat or Pinterest."

Apple's Tim Cook will echo the appeals to patriotism raised among the other tech CEOs by touting how Apple's strength, becoming the most valuable company in the world, represents success "only possible in this country."

He will also join the other tech leaders by arguing that Apple has plenty of competition.

"The smartphone market is fiercely competitive, and companies like Samsung, LG, Huawei and Google have built very successful smartphone businesses offering different approaches," Cook will say in his opening statement to lawmakers.

Whether members of the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust subcommittee buy these arguments over the course of what is set to be an hourslong spectacle is another matter.

And it remains to be seen if the public will gain new insight into the tech companies, and whether lawmakers can pin down answers from the typically cautious technology executives.

The CEOs will be testifying via video at the same time, rather than one by one, a format seen as taking the heat off any individual executive and something the companies requested.

While the hearing centers on questions around market dominance, lawmakers are free to pepper the executives with questions about any topic.

The anything-goes format will likely divert the hearing away from antitrust and delve into issues like perceived anti-conservative bias on social media platforms, a common Republican refrain. And Democrats, often raising concern about foreign election meddling, may inquire about possible efforts to influence the vote online ahead of the November election.

More on-topic probing could involve issues like acquisitions that have grown the reach of Big Tech.

For instance, Facebook has acquired nearly 90 companies, including Instagram, WhatsApp and more recently, Giphy, a tool for creating animated images.

How ever it goes, one thing is certain: It will be a day for the history books.

The hearing is the first time all four technology leaders have testified together, as scrutiny over the companies' nearly $5 trillion market power draws intensifying scrutiny in Washington.

The CEOs will be on the defensive as House lawmakers grill them about whether the business empire each company has created has resulted in monopoly-like dominance that distorts the marketplace in their favor.

After enjoying more than a decade virtually free of federal regulation, House lawmakers are expected to make the case that it's time for the technology behemoths to be held to account.

The hearing caps a more than year-long House investigation into the Big Tech companies, which has probed whether the industry leaders box out competition, discourage innovation and pose larger threats to society and American democracy.

If Washington can keep the bipartisan focus on Silicon Valley, the hearing could set the stage for historic regulations, but the tech CEOs will be making the case to lawmakers that laws aimed at reining in the scale and power of each company are not necessary, contending that competition among rivals has not been squashed and that consumers have benefited from the technology sector's success.

"You earn trust slowly, over time, by doing hard things well delivering on time; offering everyday low prices; making promises and keeping them; making principled decisions, even when they're unpopular," Bezos will tell the subcommittee.

Unpopular among the four tech giants: the argument that the power each company has amassed over the years is being abused and needs to be held accountable by Washington.

See original here:

WATCH LIVE: Heads Of Amazon, Apple, Facebook And Google Testify On Big Tech's Power - NPR

The Federal Reserve will hold rates near zero until the virus is over.

Stocksrallied afterthe Federal Reserveconfirmed it will continue to support the U.S. economy in its recovery from the coronavirus.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 162points, or 0.62percent, while the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite rose 1.25percent and 1.35percent, respectively.

FED UNDERSCORES SUPPORT FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY THREATENED BY CORONAVIRUS RESURGENCE

The Fed kept interest rates near zero, as expected, and saidit is "committed to using its full range of tools to support the U.S. economy" while also noting the pandemic has caused "tremendous human and economic hardship across the United States and around the world."

Large-cap tech stocks rose as AmazonCEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at an antitrust hearing in defense of theirbusiness practices.

Dow heavyweight Boeing Co. reported a larger than expected quarterly loss despite commercial airplane sales sinking 65 percent.

Elsewhere on the earnings front, General Motors Co. steered to a loss as dealers and factories were forced to temporarily close their doors amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Starbucks Corp. global same-store sales tumbled 40 percent from a year ago, resulting in a $678.4 million quarterly loss. The company said 99 percent of locations in China and 96 percent of U.S. stores have reopened for business.

Meanwhile, computer chipmaker Advanced Micro DevicesInc. reported mixed top- and bottom-line results, and raised its revenue guidance for the remainder of the year.

General Electric Co. revenue edged out expectations, but earnings fell short. While the company spent $2.1 billion more on industrial operating expenses than it brought in, the deficit was smaller than expected.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc.achieved a $1.1 million profit as more Americans cooked at home during the pandemic. The meal-kit maker forecast net sales growth for the rest of 2020.

Outside of earnings news, Spirit Airlines Inc. is preparing to tell unions on Friday that 20 percent to 30 percent of workers could be furloughed in October once the government stimulus package expires, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters.

Victorias Secret owner L Brands Inc. plans to cut 850 jobs, or 15 percent of its corporate workforce, in an effort to reduce annualized costs by $400 million.

Eastman Kodak Co. continued to surge after gaining 203 percent on Tuesday when it announced a pivot into the pharmaceutical business after receiving a $765 million government loan to produce generic drugs.

Looking at commodities, gold climbed $8.80 to a record-high $1,953.50 an ounce, the ninth straight session of gains while West Texas Intermediate crude oil gained 0.56 percent to $41.27a barrel.

U.S. Treasurys were little changed with the yield on the 10-year note near 0.578 percent.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

In Europe, Frances CAC traded up 0.6percent and Britains FTSE edged up 0.04percent while Germanys DAX slipped0.1percent.

Asian markets finished mixed, with Chinas Shanghai Composite surging 2.06 percent and Hong Kongs Hang Seng adding 0.45 percent after second-quarter GDP contracted by 9 percent, worse than the 8.3 percent drop that was expected. Japans Nikkei fell 1.15 percent.

See the rest here:

Tech leads stocks higher as CEOs testify and Fed keeps rates near zero - Fox Business

Small businesses are under siege. First COVID-19 shut them down; then protesters and rioters shattered windows and mayors imposed curfews. Now, everyone is hoping we dont have a second wave of COVID-19 while working to rebuild the economy.

Businesses adapted almost overnight, adjusting to operate in the new normal. Digital technologies and platforms played a key role for many small businesses. Technology has allowed small businesses to keep their virtual doors open, even when Main Street storefronts are closed. After months of hardship, trial and error, and cautious reopenings, those virtual operations are in danger with policies coming from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.

Historically, brick-and-mortar small businesses used digital technology to strengthen relationships with existing customers and extend business beyond their immediate communities. They built websites with Shopify and Squarespace, sold products on eBay and Amazon, and used Google, Facebook, and Yelp to advertise and promote their products. These large digital companies offered free and low-cost services that became increasingly important to small businesses. Before coronavirus, these services were not necessary in many small towns, but the pandemic turned those optional services into essential necessities.

Since March, small businesses have become increasingly reliant on digital platforms. A recent study by the Connected Commerce Council found that 74 percent of small businesses relied more on digital tools during the COVID-19 crisis than before. More than 30 percent of small businesses said that without digital tools, they would have shut down at least part and perhaps all of their business during the pandemic.

But Democrats dont seem to get it. In the COVID-19 environment, when small businesses are working triple-time just to survive and are increasingly relying on digital solutions, House Judiciary Democrats would attack the very digital platforms keeping Main Street America afloat. For several months the subcommittee has been investigating digital platforms, and all of Washington is anticipating the upcoming hearing when four Big Tech CEOs will be in the hotseat. We know that the so-called solutions proposed in this hearing will follow Democratic tradition over-regulatory, interventionist and anti-capitalist.

It is indisputable that Facebook, Google, and Amazon are giant American success stories. Each one started as a small business in a garage or a dorm room, with minimal resources and a big idea. Theyve turned into some of the largest tech companies in the world. Shouldnt this be celebrated? These digital platforms are offering low-priced and remarkably effective services to small businesses, doing their part to help our small businesses innovate and survive this pandemic. If small businesses are happy customers, then what is the problem that justifies new mandates on the digital economy?

We all know that the tech platforms free and low-cost digital services will become less free, more expensive and less effective if the companies are broken up or forced to change how they operate. Naturally, these costs will be borne by their customers, large and small businesses alike. How does that help our economy recover?

Its notable that in free markets, and especially in digital industries, business winners are rarely still winning ten years later. Microsoft was once considered a monopolist in computer operating systems and productivity software. Until a few months ago Zoom was a little-known video-conferencing service. And iTunes was the biggest digital music provider until Spotify came along.

Attacking companies because they are successful doesnt promote American economic freedom. I ran for Congress because I saw how few people in this chamber understand the businesses they regulate. We should promote the original ideals of our Founding Fathers: personal freedom and economic freedom. Rather than trying to break up Big Tech, we could use this hearing to discuss the role these platforms play in the freedom of speech at home and abroad.

Perhaps the Democrats report will quaintly suggest that all Americans should live in small towns, and all businesses should be mom-and-pops, but thats not how our free-market economy works. In the digital economy, small businesses and large businesses are inextricably connected by their mutual success and thats a reason to celebrate.

Rep. Kevin HernKevin HernDemocrats hurt small business when they attack Big Tech Five takeaways from PPP loan data Lawmaker-linked businesses received PPP loans MORE is ranking member of the Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax, and Capital Access.

Go here to see the original:

Democrats hurt small business when they attack Big Tech | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON A top Democrat leading an antitrust investigation into the nations top technology companies said Wednesday his committee will release a report by the end of August with recommendations on legislation that Congress could pass into law as soon as next year.

Theres no reason to not expect a new administration to take this up in their first year, said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., in an interview on The Long Game, a Yahoo News podcast.

Antitrust laws were developed during the railroad monopolies and the oil barons. Its a very different economy now. The question is, do we need to update and modernize our antitrust statutes to ensure that in the digital marketplace we have real competition? I think its pretty clear we dont have real competition, partly because of the size of these platforms, and partly because of the fact that they have essentially been unregulated, Cicilline said.

On Monday, the CEOs of the four biggest technology companies Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet and Tim Cook of Apple will testify before the House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee, chaired by Cicilline. Their testimony will occur via video link, though Cicilline and some members of the committee will physically be in a hearing room in Washington.

This hearing is the last in a series held by Cicillines subcommittee over the past year, and the stakes for the major tech companies are high, with significant implications for their businesses and revenues.

Cicilline indicated that he and other members of the committee will be asking the CEOs about aspects of their companies and business models that lawmakers suspect are suppressing competition from smaller companies and competitors. He said he wants to hear directly from the CEOs about decisions they might have made that have impacted competition, that may have favored their own goods and services, that bullied consumers or small businesses.

Story continues

The big tech companies are taking their monopolies in one market and leveraging them to take over new markets that depend on their platforms, making competition impossible, said Sally Hubbard, an antitrust expert at the Open Markets Institute, a think tank and advocacy group formed in 2017 to push for greater government oversight of big tech.

In the process, these platforms crush entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes, Hubbard said in testimony before a Senate committee in March. Employees of those businesses lose jobs or get paid less. And this monopoly dynamic degrades the quality of offerings to consumers, who should get the most relevant product search results, not results that prioritize Amazons or Googles profits.

Hubbard said that Google, which is owned by parent company Alphabet, uses its dominance of the search market to box out competitors that might eat into its huge digital advertising revenues. Likewise, she said, Amazon uses its massive size and reach to identify products that are selling well online, put its own version of those products up for sale and then manipulate search results so customers buy its products and not the competitions.

Like Google, Amazon can also take other peoples businesses and ideas almost at will. Amazon can see that a product is selling well because Amazon has all the data on product sales and customers, so Amazon can easily cut innovators out of the equation and make the product itself, Hubbard said.

The other tech giants face similar allegations. Apple has been accused of discriminating against competitors to its Apple Music program, such as Spotify. And Facebook, while often the company that attracts the most attention, is probably the most complicated when it comes to antitrust law and regulation in general.

One of the biggest complaints against Facebook is that its business model prioritizes engagement, and the algorithms it uses to promote and demote content higher and lower in users feeds has a bias toward posts that are often untrue, misleading or incendiary and hateful, because those often provoke the strongest emotional responses among users. That emotion fuels longer stays on the page and increases Facebooks advertising revenue, critics say.

Cicilline and another Democrat, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, have both introduced legislation that would prohibit tech companies like Facebook from using details about users to micro-target political advertisements to select niche audiences.

Usually if you do a fake ad thats false against me, I can do an ad in response to it, because I know its been shown to people on television or radio and I can do the same to respond to it. With micro-targeting, where all the information is so granular and so collected, so they send it to specific individuals, I dont actually have any way to know who saw that ad. I cant respond in the kind of normal marketplace of ideas where I can just do my own ad, Cicilline said. Thats what makes it so dangerous.

Cicilline has talked about removing protections from liability for tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but has not yet done so. The law says online platforms are not publishers and are not liable for the content posted to them. Eliminating that protection would potentially open them up to lawsuits.

Conservatives like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have also targeted Section 230, but for different reasons, arguing that Facebook, Twitter and Google are censoring conservative voices. In late May, President Trump signed an executive order that, while largely symbolic, sent a signal that he might push for the tech companies to lose their Section 230 protections.

Cicilline dismissed the Republican complaints. I dont have any evidence to show that Facebook is discriminating against conservatives on speech at all, he said.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have asked that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey also testify on Monday, because much of the rights ire about content moderation is directed at that platform, even as Facebook has been accused of giving preferential treatment to Trump in particular. Dorsey has not been invited, a committee source confirmed.

The potential actions by Congress or regulatory agencies to deal with antitrust issues range from breaking up some of the companies into smaller pieces to imposing whats known as common carrier rules that try to cut down on discrimination against certain customers, to more aggressive enforcement of antimonopoly laws and greater scrutiny of mergers to prevent monopolies.

Cicilline said that in this area, European governments have provided elements of a road map.

I think some of our European allies have been sort of much further ahead on this issue and sort of recognized some of the privacy issues and competition issues, he said.

_____

Read more from Yahoo News:

Go here to read the rest:

Ahead of hearing with big tech CEOs, Cicilline says a Biden presidency would lead to regulation next year - Yahoo News

Stock futures were little changed early Wednesday as investors awaited a congressional hearing on antitrust in Big Tech as well as the Federal Reserve's latest policy decision.

Dow Jones Industrial Average futures rose just 5 points, or less than 0.05%. S&P 500 futures gained 0.1% and Nasdaq 100 futures advanced 0.4%.

The Fed will conclude itstwo-daypolicy meetingWednesday and is set to release a statement at 2 p.m. ET. Chairman Jerome Powell will have a press conference at 2:30 p.m. ET.

The central bank is expected to keep short-term interest rates unchanged at near zeroto support the economy still struggling with the coronavirus pandemic.On Tuesday, the Fed announced it would extendits emergency lending programs through the remainder of 2020.

"Markets continue to expect ultra-accommodative policy from the Fed, and the Fed is unlikely to disappoint at this meeting,"Bill Callahan,investment strategist at Schroders, said in an email. "Given that we are still squarely in the center of the pandemic, the only question for investors is just how dovish the Fed will be."

Meanwhile, the chiefexecutives of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google-parent Alphabet will testifybefore the House Antitrust Subcommittee later Wednesday following a yearlong probe into their anti-competitive practices. Investors will look for insights on how the Big Tech is handling antitrust challenges from regulators with the authority to break them up.

Shares of Big Tech are among the best performers this year. Facebook and Alphabet are both up more than 12% year to date entering Wednesday's session. Amazon has skyrocketed 62.4% over that time and Apple is up 27%.

The busiest week of the earnings season continued, with General Electric and Boeing releasing their latest quarterly figures. GE reported a stronger-than-forecast revenue, sending the stock up 1.6% in the premarket. Boeing posted a wider-than-expected loss and the stock traded 0.5% lower.

Shares of Advanced Micro Devices popped more than 1% after the chipmaker posted on Tuesday better-than-expected quarterly earnings and issued an upbeat guidance for the year.Starbucksswung to a loss during its fiscal third quarter, but the world's largest coffee chain raised its forecast for the current quarter, sending shares up more than 5% in extended trading.

Subscribe to CNBC PRO for exclusive insights and analysis, and live business day programming from around the world.

See original here:

Stock futures are flat ahead of Fed decision and Big Tech testimony - CNBC