The so-called FAAMG stocks have been the target of Washington, D.C. all year.

Well, most of them at least.

The CEOs of Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) were virtually questioned before Congress this summer and are now the focus of a 451-page report released this week on their business practices.

Facebook, Google and Twitter (TWTR) will be back before lawmakers later this month for a Senate hearing.

But Microsoft (MSFT) no stranger to Congressional inquiries in years past has largely managed to escape the glare.

Thats because they are now the adult in the room in some ways on this issue, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.), a Democratic member of the House Antitrust subcommittee, which has been diving into Big Techs practices for the last 16 months.

The final report doesnt call for a break-up of the companies, but does talk about the need for structural separations to prohibit one part of a company from using another part of their platform to gain an unfair advantage.

The idea is a roadmap for restoring competition, improving innovation, and safeguarding democracy, say the reports Democratic authors, Reps. Jerrold Nadler and David N. Cicilline.

Jayapals Seattle district includes Amazons headquarters and the companys practices, specifically how it uses data from third-party sellers, has been one of her major focuses.

Its Congresss job to make sure a company like Amazon can't just put a small business that produces diapers out of business by taking all of that market information that nobody else has access to, and using it to subsidize losses and push small companies out, Jayapal told Yahoo Finance.

She has also had a less-than-cordial relationship with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. During a Yahoo Finance interview this summer, Jayapal said she had never before met the billionaire. They did talk virtually in July when she grilled him during the hearings, but she said this week that communication since then has been sparse.

Story continues

I've had an open door policy to speaking with Mr. Bezos and have invited him many times, she said. Though she has met with Amazon senior managers.

The lesson here is self-regulation doesn't work, said Jayapal. She points to Microsoft as an example that Amazon should follow, of successfully working with the government.

In 1998, Microsoft was the subject of Congressional antitrust inquiries and many wanted to break the company up. In the end, Bill Gates was able to avoid a breakup by promising to change his companys ways.

The company had to change its culture, change its lines of business, Jayapal said. The process of government involvement led to Microsoft creating a platform for other small companies to thrive, she said.

Jayapal is perhaps the most liberal member of the team charged with investigating big tech. Elected to Congress in 2016, Jayapal is seen as a mentor to freshman Democratic lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib.

Jayapal also pointed to the Microsoft example as to why breaking up a company isnt always the best option.

Perhaps in retrospect, Amazon, after we've regulated them, after we've put through some of the recommendations that are in the report, we'll look back and say, "You know what? It's a good thing that that happened, she said.

Ben Werschkul is a producer for Yahoo Finance in Washington, DC.

Read more:

Big Tech, Wall Street and other topics that barely came up at the conventions

After Big Tech hearing, these changes could become priorities for Washington

Inside Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google versus the Feds

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

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

View original post here:

Microsoft is now the adult in the room among big tech: Seattle Congresswoman - Yahoo Tech

Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday censored posts by President Donald Trump that the social media platforms said violated their rules against misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. In his posts, Trump compared COVID-19 to the seasonal flu, downplayed the deadly nature of the pandemic and said, we are learning to live with COVID.

The morning after he returned to the White House from Walter Reed Hospitalstill infectious and heavily medicatedand posed in Hitlerian fashion for a photo op on the Truman Balcony, Trump took to social media to bolster his homicidal herd immunity policy and dangerously demonstrate by example how the great leader is facing down the virus.

Facebook removed his post entirely but not before it was shared approximately 26,000 times, according to data published by the social media metrics company CrowdTangle. A Facebook spokesperson told CNBC, We remove incorrect information about the severity of Covid-19, and have now removed this post.

The action by Facebook is unusual in that the worlds largest social media platform has been reluctant to remove posts by the president in the past. In August, Facebook deleted a video of Donald Trump falsely asserting that children were almost immune from COVID-19 during an interview with Fox News, the first time the platform ever removed one of his social media posts.

In the case of Twitter, the tweet remains up but is covered by a warning that says, This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the publics interest for the Tweet to remain accessible, along with a link to learn more about the companys coronavirus information policy. Trumps post cannot be retweeted or shared.

The full Tweet reads, Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!

That Trumps comparison of the seasonal flu to the coronavirus is completely false is easily confirmed by information readily accessible on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The site contains data for every year of the seasonal flu going back to 2010-2011 and shows that the death rate among those who get sick from the flu ranges between 0.1 percent and 0.3 percent. The death rate, through July, of those who have contracted COVID-19 is 2 percent, showing that coronavirus is between 6.7 and 20 times more deadly than the flu.

Additionally, as pointed out by the Washington Post, many people who have been infected with the virus have lingering symptoms for months, including difficulty breathing, inability to exert themselves physically, recurring pain. The virus can cause long-term damage to organs other than the lungs, damage that is not common to the seasonal flu.

In response to the censorship measures by Facebook and Twitter, the President tweeted REPEAL SECTION 230!!! Section 230 contains the provisions within the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that shield online services such as social media platforms from being legally responsible for the content posted by users of their systems.

When Twitter began labeling the presidents tweets in late May, he issued an executive order making the US government the arbiter of political speech online. The order called upon the Federal Communications Commission to revise the scope of Section 230 and also empowered the Federal Trade Commission to evaluate the content moderation polices of the tech giants and determine whether or not their actions violate free speech rights.

With Attorney General William Barr standing next to him, President Trump said on that day, Were here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers, before he signed the order. By empowering the federal regulatory agencies in his executive order, Trump was sending a message to big tech that attempts to censor his social media postsalong with those of his far-right and fascist allies and supporterswould result in the removal of Section 230 protections and open up the online service providers to fines and lawsuits.

Since then, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and AG Barr late last month drafted proposed legislation modifying the language of Section 230 to address concerns about online censorship by requiring greater transparency and accountability when platforms remove lawful speech. In a letter dated September 23, Barr jumbled together claims that big tech is hiding behind the shield of Section 230 to censor lawful speech with the allegation that online service providers are invoking the laws protections to escape liability even when they knew their services were being used for criminal activity.

Simultaneous with the DoJ-drafted legislation, Republican Senators Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced a bill in the Senate that calls for nearly identical modifications to Section 230 rules for online services. At the top of their list is the unsubstantiated charge that right-wing political views are being singled out by the tech monopolies for persistent online censorship.

Sunday, October 11, 7pm US EDT

The sickness in the White House

An online meeting with Socialist Equality Party candidates in the 2020 US elections, Joseph Kishore and Norissa Santa Cruz.

In moving the bill, Senator Wicker said, For too long, social media platforms have hidden behind Section 230 protections to censor content that deviates from their beliefs. These practices should not receive special protections in our society where freedom of speech is at the core of our nations values. Our legislation would restore power to consumers by promoting full and fair discourse online.

On October 1, the Senate Commerce Committee, which includes 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats, voted unanimously to subpoena the top executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google to appear at a hearing on Section 230 on October 28. After initial opposition to the subpoenas from Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, the Republicans agreed to add the topics of privacy and misinformation to be discussed along with censorship issues.

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee released a 449-page report on Tuesday on the results of its antitrust investigation into Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook which condemns big techs monopoly power and calls for the companies to be broken up and restructured.

The coming together of the White House and Democrats and Republicans in Congress over a raft of regulations and attempt to assert government control over the Silicon Valley tech giants raises to a new level contradictions embedded within the capitalist system, not least of which is that these firms are the most valued properties on Wall Street worth trillions of dollars and a primary source of the massive fortunes being made by the financial oligarchy that controls both parties and the entire US political establishment.

Behind the frenzied efforts to reign in the powerful technologies of these firms is a growing awareness that the utilization of these systems by billions of people amid expanding class struggle internationally presents the ruling elite with a problem of revolutionary proportions.

While the ruling establishment is roiled by intense conflicts in the run-up to the November 3 electionswith Trump asserting that he intends to stay in office regardless of the outcome the Democrats and Republicans are unified in their drive to clamp down on information technologies. Their central aim is to prevent the working class from using these technologies to organize their struggles, including across national boundaries, and above all to stop the program of revolutionary socialism represented by the World Socialist Web Site from reaching the working class and youth.

Originally posted here:

Trump intensifies conflict with big tech over Section 230 protections following censorship moves by Facebook and Twitter - WSWS

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on stimulus, the presidents health status, Obamagate, social media and the push to break up big tech.

In case protests, riots, lockdowns and a recession didnt already have partisan tensions at their boiling point, the steaming cauldron of rhetoric around the 2020 election just got about 100 degrees hotter.

The recent passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the resulting vacancy on the Supreme Court, has Democrats and Republicans scrambling to win the public relations battle on how and when her seat should be filled.

Once again, Americans are wondering what information to trust.In this unusually messy time, some seek the short-term comfort that comes from rubber stamping the best information, or even silencing what they dont like or agree with. But to rebuild trust in our institutions, we need the opposite.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE BIG TECH OF CAPRICIOUS CENSORSHIPIn just one example, claims of tradition and precedent mixed with charges of bad faith are flying fast and furious.

Senate Democrats are levying charges of hypocrisy at Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who in 2016 blocked hearings on President Obamas election-year appointment of Judge Merrick Garland. They point to past statements from the Kentucky senator suggesting that the people should vote before a nominee is confirmed.Republicans counter that the cagey McConnell was referring only to the circumstances in 2016, when the parties split control of the Senate and White House, and that the present alignment, in which they control both, makes for a completely different situation.There is a lot to unpack there, and these are just a few of the literally dozens of arguments being thrown around.

What are concerned voters seeking the facts supposed to think?There are no easy answers, but one thing is clear: We shouldnt outsource our critical thinking to content moderators and curators, like Facebook and Twitter.

DEMOCRAT-LED HOUSE PANEL TO SEEK BREAKUP OF BIG TECH, GOP LAWMAKER SAYSLike just about everyone else, Big Tech publishers have agendas. They use questionable fact checking and algorithmic manipulation to show content that supports their preferred narratives.

At Parler, we call this an information brownout. Like a power company rationing electricity, tech oligarchs give plenty of juice to the content that supports what they want you to think, and they underpower competing viewpoints.Private or public censorship--even when convenient--has never been tolerated for long in America, and neither will technoauthoritarianism.

Everyone has the right to hear all sides of an argument and decide what to see, read, think, and share for themselves.Tensions are going to remain high in this election, and the decisions made by Americas communication platforms are sure to influence voters.

Our process, and our republic, demand that leaders be accountable for their actions at the ballot box. Voters will have the chance to make their opinions heard in six weeks, and either reward or punish politicians as they see fit.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The people deserve to make these decisions armed with all--not some or most--of the available information.Just as importantly, trust in and respect for election results requires transparency. Americans deserve this as they deal with the difficulties of voting in a pandemic and the realities of greatly expanded vote-by-mail programs.

If a technoauthoritarian brownout undermines the free exchange of information in November, that trust could be mislaid. Twitter and Facebook have already discussed plans, in the event of various contingencies, to impose de-facto censorship and allow only approved information sources to be seen and heard.Courts are already ruling that ballots will be accepted for days after November 3. The tabulation process will no doubt be messy, and both parties are readying their spin machines to challenge or attack the process.

The 2016 presidential results were essentially decided by fewer than 100,000 votes spread across three swing states. The implications of fraud, interference, or even error in 2020 could be huge.In this environment, any technoauthoritarian brownout will be a disaster, fueling suspicions and undermining confidence in the final outcome. Americans deserve better.What we need is uncensored, real-time election coverage. We need candidates, journalists, observers, and interested citizens sharing information and commentary.

We need hubs for exit polling, poll watching, ballot counting and recounting, legal challenges, breaking news and analysis from all perspectives.

Ideally, every platform will honor the right of all individuals to speak and hear freely.While this is business as usual at Parler, we are proud to do our part this year to ensure that no candidate, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, will be able cheat, incite unrest, or steal an election unchallenged and in the darkness.

The people deserve to vote after making their own judgments, armed with all available information. And after their votes are cast, they deserve a transparent process that they can trust is legitimate.

Lets all join together and see to it that this happens.Jeffrey Wernick is COO and Angel Investor in Parler.John Matze isCEO of Parler.Amy Peikoff is Chief Policy Officer for Parler.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Original post:

2020 election may be messy but shouldn't be censored by Big Tech: Parler CEO Matze, COO Wernick, CPO Peikoff - Fox Business

NEW YORK On October 8, Senate Deputy Leader Michael Gianaris issued the following statement as House Judiciary Democrats released their long-anticipated investigative report on the monopolistic practices of Big Tech companies. The report specifically highlighted the need for an abuse of dominance standard which Senator Gianaris has proposed in his legislation at the state level.

Our antitrust laws were written a century ago for a radically different economy and they are in desperate need of serious updates. Corporate power has reached unprecedented and dangerous levels, and we need powerful new laws to protect the public and our economy, said Senate Deputy Leader Gianaris. "I am pleased this issue is gaining attention and I commend our colleagues in Congress, led by Rep. David Cicilline, for their thorough investigation."

New York's existing antitrust laws are more than a century old and are not equipped to regulate abuses in todays world. In the meantime, market domination has led to new uncompetitive practices such as predatory pricing and leveraging a companys dominant position to control adjacent markets.Senator Gianaris legislation - the 21st Century Antitrust Act - would allow the state to take action against companies engaging in these practices, as well as allow for class action lawsuits. The Senate held its first-ever antitrust hearing on Senator Gianaris' bill in September.

More:

Gianaris on House Judiciary Big Tech Antitrust Investigation Report - The National Herald

The Democratic leaders of the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee released a 449-page report this week alleging a lack of competition in digital markets. The report proposes countless remedies, including specific suggestions for Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. But one recommendation stands out for its simplicity and potential efficacy.

The big tech companies have strengthened their positions by acquiring lots of smaller companies, the report argues, and It is unclear whether the antitrust agencies are presently equipped to block anticompetitive mergers in digital markets. The report suggests a simple policy change to fix that:

Subcommittee staff recommends that Congress consider shifting presumptions for future acquisitions by the dominant platforms. Under this change, any acquisition by a dominant platform would be presumed anticompetitive unless the merging parties could show that the transaction was necessary for serving the public interest and that similar benefits could not be achieved through internal growth and expansion.

This idea isnt new: In merger review, its known as structural presumption. Back in 1963, the US Supreme Court established in United States v. Philadelphia National Bankthat certain mergers should be presumed to be anticompetitive, based on the market share of the companies seeking to merge.

Youre looking at the United States in the aftermath of World War II, looking at the rise of concentration in Europe, really warning that we want to avoid that, explains Maurice Stucke, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and the author of Competition Overdose.

The presumption that certain mergers were anticompetitive and so should be blocked helped judges avoid digging through complicated economic questions in cases where, it was believed, the answer was fairly clear-cut. The Court believed it should not ramble through the wilds of economic theory, says Stucke.

That presumption held through the 60s and 70s, but started to change in the 80s as the law-and-economics movement popularized the idea that judges should be considering complicated economic questions in making their rulingsincluding on questions of antitrust. What happened was [that] in other contexts a conservative Supreme Court began rambling through the wilds of economic theory, says Stucke.

Current US merger guidelines still contain a version of the presumption created in 1963, but it has become less stringent over time and today it amounts to a recommendation that courts apply extra scrutiny, not a shift in the burden of proof.

The result is that lots of harmful mergers are approved, argues John Kwoka, an economist at Northeastern University who has researched mergers in concentrated markets. These mergers give the acquiring firm more power over their market and ultimately result in higher prices. Fiona Scott Morton, an economist at Yale, reached the same conclusion in a review of the past decade of antitrust research.

The committees report recommends codifying the presumption in law. What this would do is it would shift the burden, says Stucke. So now the burden of proof is on the merging parties to show the transaction was necessary for serving the public interestthey would have to show that this merger is competitive. Doing so would make it harder for large tech companies to buy up potential competitors, as Facebook did with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Unlike policy ideas that are specific to tech, codifying the presumption against mergers in concentrated markets would also help restore competition across the US economy.Big firms are growing more dominant in most industries and are less likely to be unseated than they once were. Making it harder to buy up smaller competitors could help reverse those trends.

Preventing acquisitions could also make big companies more innovative, according to a team of economists at Duke University and Norwich Business School. Historically, many large [corporate R&D] labs were set up partly because antitrust pressure constrained large firms ability to grow through mergers and acquisitions, they write in a recently published history of the US innovation economy. In the 1930s, if a leading firm wanted to grow, it needed to develop new markets. With growth through mergers and acquisitions constrained by antitrust pressures, and with little on offer from universities and independent inventors, it often had no choice but to invest in internal R&D.

Big US companies do less scientific research today than they once did. The major tech companies do invest significantly in research and developmentin 2018, Amazon and Alphabet were first and second, respectively, in global spending on R&Dand they publish more in scientific journals than most companies. But their scientific publishing hasnt grown in line with their revenues. At Microsoft and Alphabet, the two biggest scientific publishers of the big tech firms, scientific publications per $1,000 in sales peaked in 2009 and has since sharply declined.

Big firms ability to buy up innovation without doing it themselves has a precedent in the US, and not one that is favorable to the tech companies. In the late 19th century, US railroad companies mostly eschewed doing research, choosing instead to buy up patents from smaller firms or individual inventors. The success of their strategy helped kick off the original antitrust movement.

Read the original here:

A simple change to antitrust law that could rein in big tech - Quartz

By James Clayton, BBC North America technology reporter

The US elections could affect the global social media and technology landscape. We now have two huge clues for what Big Tech can expect in the years to come.

Photo: 123RF

In the US, both the Democrats and the Republicans now have a fixed position on regulating tech.

They are both totally different.

First off Trump.

After the US President shared a piece of disinformation on Facebook and Twitter about the relative dangers of Covid, the two companies reacted: Twitter hid his post and Facebook removed it altogether.

Trump responded by tweeting "Repeal Section 230!!!".

This is a key piece of legislation that stops companies like Facebook and Twitter from being liable for the things people post.

It essentially gives them "platform" rather than "publisher" status.

Just imagine for a second if all of the posts on Facebook - all of the accusations, all of the libellous content, all of it - was the responsibility of Mark Zuckerberg.

It doesn't work. Without Section 230 companies like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok etc couldn't function as they do now. They'd potentially have to moderate your content in real time.

Even for the most powerful artificial intelligence systems, that is not possible.

You might think: "Trump says he'll repeal Section 230, but will he actually?"

Photo: AFP

My response would be: "Look at TikTok."

Trump has well and truly followed up on his actions - without a judge's last minute intervention it would be illegal for Apple and Google's app stores to offer TikTok for download in the US now.

It's perfectly conceivable that a Trump presidency would follow through with his campaign threats.

Plenty of Republicans believe that much of social media has an anti-conservative bias. Trump would certainly find support from his own party to act.

The other big tech news earlier this week was the release of The House Judiciary Committee's report into "antitrust".

This is the idea that Big Tech has got so big it is now flouts anti-competition rules.

This is a Democrat-led committee - the report was written by Democrats.

The report concludes: "To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog start-ups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons."

Photo: 123RF

The share price of all four companies dived as soon as the report was released.

Literally, the first recommendation is to prohibit "dominant platforms from operating in adjacent lines of business".

That would be massive. It could potentially stop companies like Google owning YouTube. Or Facebook owning Instagram.

The word "monopoly" is used 120 times in the report.

These weren't bi-partisan recommendations though - Republicans didn't support all the findings.

However, there is some common ground between the parties.

For example, Republican Ken Buck has said he agrees with much of the report.

And in terms of Section 230, Biden has also indicated he could support getting rid of it - albeit for different reasons to Trump.

And so we have two Presidential candidates, each with his own stick to bash Big Tech.

The company that perhaps is least hedged against these two approaches is Facebook. It's hard to know which option would be worse for the social network.

If Joe Biden becomes the US President, calls to break up Big Tech could grow. Photo: AFP

For others, well there's now a reasonable argument that can be made that Trump would be better.

Republican focus on social media bias would pretty much leave Apple and perhaps Amazon untouched.

The election issues in this campaign have been centred around Covid, Black Lives Matter, the economy and law enforcement.

But make no mistake, this US election is a huge event for Big Tech too.

- BBC

Link:

Big Tech: Between a rock and a hard place in the US - RNZ

ICYMI:RhodeIsland was up to 25,596 confirmed coronavirus cases on Tuesday, after adding 145 new cases. The most recent first-time, test-positive rate was 5.6 percent. The state announced four more deaths, bringing the total to 1,125. There were 93 people in the hospital, eight in intensive care, and four were on ventilators.

* * *

U.S. RepresentativeDavid Cicillinesantitrust subcommittee released a449-page reportTuesday that makes the case that the worlds largest tech companies (think Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google)are operating monopoliesand that sweeping reforms should be enacted to limit their ability to swallow up competitors.

The report, released after a 16-month investigation that included the high-profile testimonyof the top tech executivesearlier this year, concludes that the dominance of the largest companies have allowed them to run the marketplace (like e-commerce) while also competing in it, giving them an unfair advantage.

The report recommends that laws be approved or changed to impose structural separations and prohibitions of certain dominant platforms from operating in adjacent lines of business and potentially prevent them from future mergers or acquisitions that would grow their monopolies. The committee also wants to strengthen antitrust laws and invest in enforcement.

To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons, the report states.

In a telephone interview Tuesday evening, Cicilline said the thing that surprised him most during the investigation was the level of data collection and surveillance by the major tech companies. He said he didnt fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem at the beginning of the probe.

They are collecting and monetizing and weaponizing an enormous amount of personal data, Cicilline said.

The report has already been met with fierce opposition from the companies. In a blog post on Tuesday, Amazon criticized regulatory spit-balling on antitrust, arguing that some of the ideas being kicked about would have the primary effect of forcing millions of independent retailers out of online stores.

Cicilline fired back, suggesting that all of these platforms have a very substantial financial interest in protecting the status quo.

Cicilline also downplayed what appears to beRepublican oppositionto the recommendations, noting that Democrats and Republicans on the committee agree on the majority of reports findings. But no Republican agreed to sign on to the report, and at least three of them released their own report.

And while he acknowledged that the outcome of next months election will play a major role in determining whether the committees recommendations ever become law, Cicilline said he believes the shared set of facts among members of both parties is a sign of progress.

Thats a very different place from where we were a year or two ago, Cicilline said.

* * *

THE GLOBE IN RHODE ISLAND

The second day of political operativeJeff Brittsmoney laundering trial included the damning testimony of a semi-retired private investigator who told the judge that Britthanded him $1,000 in cashafter asking him to write a $1,000 check to a former Republican candidate so she could afford a mailer backing Democratic House SpeakerNicholas Mattiello.

If your head is spinning when reading about the Britt trial, youre not alone. Heres my attempt toanswer many of the questionsyou might be too afraid to ask.

On the same day that we told you about all of the items Rhode Islanderswant to seein the next coronavirus relief package,President Trumpannounced he was calling off negotiations until after the election. My colleaguesLarry EdelmanandShirley Leungexplainwhat the decision means.

Thedeath of legendary guitarist Eddie Van Halensent me down the Google rabbit hole yesterday afternoon, and heres one of the coolest things I learned: Some of the music video for Panama was shot at the Providence Civic Center.

* * *

MORE ON BOSTONGLOBE.COM

Opinion: This wont be that much of surprise to you, but the Globes editorial board is backingJoe Bidenfor president. The board has taken a unique approach by attempting to explain to12 different kinds of voterswhy it believes Biden is the right pick.

2020: If you want to cry and laugh and scream and smile, you should start your morning with my colleagueZoe Greenbergsexhaustive look at whether were livingin one of the craziest yearsin American history.

Education: If I were homeschooling my kids, I think Id wantBilly Baker to be involved.

Coronavirus:President Trump is once again comparing COVID-19 to the flu, but this chartshows how wrong he is.

Sports: There are more important things than football for colleges across the country to care about, butBob Hohlerlooks at how UMass is hoping its decision to playwill provide a much-needed boostto a struggling program.

* * *

WHATS ON TAP TODAY

Each day,Rhode Mapoffers a cheat sheet breaking downwhats happening inRhodeIsland. Have an idea? E-mail us atRInews@globe.com.

BIRTHDAYS:RhodeMapreaders, if you want a friend or family member to be recognized on Friday,send me an e-mailwith their first and last name, and their age.

GovernorGina Raimondosweekly coronavirus press conference is at 1 p.m.

Day three of political operative Jeff Britts money laundering trial begins at 10 a.m. You canlisten to the livestream here.

The 2020 Womens Small Business Summit is being streamed over three days, beginning today and continuing Oct. 22 and Nov. 5. You cancheck out todays agenda here.

The Rotary Clubs of Rhode Island will be outside the State House at 12:30 p.m. for the arrival of 30,000 protective face masks that will be distributed to first responders and essential workers.

Do you Rhode Map? Your subscription is what makes it possible.Weve got a great offer here.

* * *

Thanks for reading. Send comments and suggestions to dan.mcgowan@globe.com, or follow me on Twitter @DanMcGowan. See you tomorrow.

Please tell your friends about Rhode Map! They cansign up here. The Globe has other e-mail newsletters on topics ranging from breaking news alerts to sports, politics, business, and entertainment --check them out.

Dan McGowan can be reached at dan.mcgowan@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter at @danmcgowan.

Continued here:

Congressman Cicilline just laid the smack down on big tech companies - The Boston Globe

* Big tech caps index gains on antitrust threat

* Fed Chair Powell speaks

* Crude extends gains on Trumps recovery, supply pressures

* Stimulus talks ongoing

* Graphic: 2020 asset performance tmsnrt.rs/2yaDPgn

* Graphic: World FX rates in 2020 tmsnrt.rs/2egbfVh (Updates to U.S. markets open, changes dateline from LONDON to NEW YORK, changes byline)

NEW YORK, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Large-cap tech stocks weighed on U.S. and European equities on Tuesday despite reassurances about President Donald Trumps improving health and progress toward a stimulus deal.

President Trump said he felt real good upon returning to the White House after a three-day hospital stay where he received an experimental treatment for COVID-19.

The view that Trump appears to be on the road of recovery is benefiting the global markets because it indicates that there is stability in the White House, said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment strategist at Inverness Counsel in New York.

But market-leading large cap tech stocks weighed on U.S. stocks after reports that the U.S. House of Representatives upcoming antitrust report contains a thinly veiled call to break up the companies.

U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is speaking on the topic of Economics, Business and Policy in the Pandemic at a virtual meeting of the National Association for Business and Economics.

Powells not prone to surprising the markets, Ghriskey added. Hes likely to confirm the Feds goals of improving employment and creating some inflation over the longer term.

Stocks were little changed as Powell began his remarks.

Optimism over the passage of a new pandemic relief aid package was simmering in the background, as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin continued to hammer out a bipartisan agreement months after emergency benefits expired for millions of Americans.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 107.79 points, or 0.38%, to 28,256.43, the S&P 500 gained 3.18 points, or 0.09%, to 3,411.81 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 2.36 points, or 0.02%, to 11,330.12.

European equities advanced after Trumps release from the hospital helped ease uncertainties and as Germany reported a remarkable jump in industrial orders, but pared gains due to weakness in tech and healthcare stocks .

The pan-European STOXX 600 index rose 0.16% and MSCIs gauge of stocks across the globe gained 0.28%.

Crude prices extended gains, boosted by waning uncertainties surrounding Trumps health and supply disruptions from the ongoing oil worker strike in Norway.

U.S. crude rose 3.9% to $40.75 per barrel and Brent was last at $42.78, up 3.61% on the day.

The dollar edged nominally lower as investors waited for developments in ongoing stimulus talks in Washington.

The dollar index fell 0.09%, with the euro up 0.08% to $1.179.

The Japanese yen strengthened 0.11% versus the greenback at 105.64 per dollar, while Sterling was last trading at $1.2971, down 0.05% on the day.

U.S. Treasury yields slightly extended their rise after Fed Chair Powell began speaking on the economy.

Benchmark 10-year notes last fell 7/32 in price to yield 0.7834%, from 0.762% late on Monday.

The 30-year bond last fell 27/32 in price to yield 1.6029%, from 1.567% late on Monday.

Stimulus hopes also helped gold prices inch higher.

Spot gold added 0.2% to $1,916.49 an ounce.

Reporting by Stephen Culp; additional reporting by Marc Jones; Editing by Bernadette Baum

Original post:

GLOBAL MARKETS-Big tech weighs on U.S., world equities, capping gains on Trump's improving health - Reuters

TipRanks

If the stock markets ups and downs this year have taught us any enduring lesson, its a repeat of an old stand-by: the importance of setting up a steady income stream, to keep the portfolio profitable no matter how the individual shares move. Dividends are a key part of any investment income strategy, giving investors a reliable income when its needed most.All dividends are not created equal, however. Investors should seek out companies with one of two advantage or preferably both: a commitment to maintaining the dividend, and a high yield. The second is not hard to find, considering the Federal Reserves policy of keeping interest rates near zero, while the first attribute may take some research.With all of that in mind, weve opened up the Stock Screener tool from TipRanks, a company that tracks and measures the performance of analysts, to find stocks with high dividend yields. Setting the screener filters to show stocks with "strong buy" consensus rating and a high dividend yields exceeding 9% gave us a manageable list of stocks. Weve picked three to focus on.New Mountain Finance Corporation (NMFC)The first stock on the list is New Mountain Finance, in the business development niche. New Mountain invests in debt securities, including first and second lien notes and mezzanine securities. The Company's portfolio includes public and private equity and credit funds with a total worth well north of $28 billion.The company reported 30 cents per share in net investment income for the second quarter, down 4 cents sequentially. At the top line, revenues came in at $76 million, a healthy turnaround from the first quarter revenue loss of $174 million. As far as the data can show, New Mountain has turned around from the coronavirus losses incurred early in the year.New Mountain kept its dividend payment stable in the second quarter, at 30 cents per common share. At the current level, the $1.20 annualized payout gives a high yield of 11.5%.Wells Fargo analyst Finian OShea is comfortable with NMFCs dividend policy, writing, Having reduced its $0.34 dividend to $0.30 last quarter, coverage appears solid after the BDC has sustained its impact from nonaccruals, de-leveraging and LIBOROShea believes NMFC shares have room to rise, noting: "NMFC trades at 0.82x, about in-line with the WFBDC Index despite its history of top-quartile returns, improved leverage profile and portfolio level performance so far through todays recessionary environment."To this end, OShea rates NMFC an Overweight (i.e. Buy), and his $11.25 price target suggests it has a nearly 14% upside potential for the coming year. (To watch OSheas track record, click here)Overall, the Wall Street consensus on NMFC is a Strong Buy, based on 4 reviews including 3 Buys and 1 Hold. The shares are selling for $9.88, and the average price target of $10.92 implies a one-year upside of 11% for the stock. (See NMFC stock analysis on TipRanks)Plains GP Holdings (PAGP)Next on our list, Plains GP, is a holding company in the oil and gas midstream sector. Plains assets move oil and gas products from the well heads to the storage facilities, refineries, and transport hubs. The companys operations move more than 6 million barrels of oil equivalent daily, in a network extending to the Texas oil patch and the Gulf Coast. Plains also has assets in California and the Appalachian natural gas fields.The crisis in the first half of this year put heavy pressure on Plains revenue and earnings. By Q2, revenue was down by two-thirds, to $3.2 billion, and EPS had fallen to just 9 cents. As part of its response, Plains slashed its dividend by half from 36 cents per common share to 18 cents. The cut was made to keep the dividend within the distributable cash flow, affordable for the company and kept up for shareholders. Looking at numbers, PAGP's dividend payment offers investors a yield of 11.7%, almost 6x higher than the average yield among S&P 500-listed companies.Tristan Richardson, covering the stock for Truist, sees Plains in a good spot at present. Noting the difficulties faced earlier in the year, he writes, Despite cautious notes on recovery and general industry commentary that reflects the tepid growth environment, Plains remains among best positioned, in our view, amongst volumetrically sensitive business as a dominant Permian operator We believe the units/shares should find some support over the near term on the inflection to positive free cash flow and gradual de-levering.Richardson gives this stock a Buy rating and $12 price target, indicating an impressive potential upside of 80% for the next 12 months. (To watch Richardsons track record, click here)The Strong Buy analyst consensus rating on PAGP is unanimous, based on 5 recent reviews, all Buys. The stock has an average price target of $11, implying an upside of 65% from the current share price of $6.82. (See PAGP stock analysis on TipRanks)Sixth Street Specialty Lending (TSLX)The last company on our list recently underwent a name change; in June, it dropped its old name TPG in favor of Sixth Street. The ticker and stock history remain the same, however, so the difference for investors is in the letterhead. Sixth Street continues the core business of providing credit and capital for mid-market companies, helping to fund Americas small and medium enterprise niche.The economic difficulties of the corona crisis were easily visible in this companys top line. Revenue was negative in Q1, due to a curtailment in loan collections and reduction in interest income, although earnings remained positive. In Q2, EPS rose to 59 cents per share, meeting the forecast, and revenues returned to positive numbers, at $103 million.Sixth Street adjusted its dividend during the crisis, but that move did not raise any eyebrows. The company has a long history of dividend payment adjustments, regularly making changes to the common stock dividend in order to keep it in line with earnings, and giving supplemental dividends when possible. The current regular payment is set at 41 cents, annualizing to $1.64, and giving a strong yield of 9.45%.JMP analyst Christopher York believes that Sixth Street has as solid position in its niche, noting, we think the company has historically proven, and subsequently earned investor trust and credibility to underwrite and structure complex and special situation investments to achieve attractive risk-adjusted returns.Regarding the dividend, York is optimistic about the future, writing, [The] supplemental dividend is likely to return following two quarters of no distributions as a result of the mechanics of the supplemental dividend frameworkIn line with his positive outlook for the company, York rates the stock as Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his $20 price target indicates confidence in a 15% upside potential. (To watch Yorks track record, click here)This stock has another unanimous Strong Buy consensus rating, with 5 recent Buy reviews. The stocks current share price is $17.33 and the average price target of $19.30 suggests it has room for 11% share price growth ahead of it. (See TSLX stock analysis on TipRanks)To find good ideas for dividend stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights.Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

More here:

Big Tech's $5 Trillion Reckoning Has to Start Somewhere - Yahoo Finance

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wall Street took a nosedive late in the session on Tuesday, reversing solid gains to close deep in negative territory after President Donald Trump announced he was calling off talks on coronavirus relief legislation until after the Nov. 3 election.

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. flag is seen outside of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., September 21, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

All three major U.S. stock indexes closed more than 1% lower.

The markets finally ran out of hope Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and (Treasury) Secretary (Steven) Mnuchin would pull a rabbit out of a hat, said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Independent Advisor Alliance in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Trumps announcement in a tweet came on the heels of U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powells warning of dire economic repercussions if Congress failed to pass additional fiscal stimulus.

Powell called for Congress to act quickly and Trump effectively pulled the rug out from under that, said Oliver Pursche, president of Bronson Meadows Capital Management in Fairfield, Connecticut. Its troubling, given the statements Chairman Powell made earlier today.

In remarks delivered online to the National Association for Business Economics, Powell warned the U.S. economy could slip into a downward spiral if the coronavirus is not contained and Congress fails to deliver additional fiscal support to businesses and households.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average .DJI fell 375.88 points, or 1.34%, to 27,772.76, the S&P 500 .SPX lost 47.68 points, or 1.40%, to 3,360.95, and the Nasdaq Composite .IXIC dropped 177.88 points, or 1.57%, to 11,154.60.

The pan-European STOXX 600 index .STOXX rose 0.07% and MSCI's gauge of stocks across the globe shed 0.75%.

Crude prices extended gains, boosted by supply disruptions from approaching storms in the Gulf of Mexico and an ongoing oil worker strike in Norway.

U.S. crude futures settled at $40.67 per barrel, a gain of 3.7%, while Brent gained 3.29% on the day to settle $42.65 per barrel.

The dollar, essentially flat for much of the session, jumped against a basket of world currencies after Trumps tweet.

The dollar index .DXY rose 0.21%, with the euro EUR= down 0.27% to $1.1749.

The Japanese yen strengthened 0.14% versus the greenback at 105.62 per dollar, while Sterling GBP= was last trading at $1.2902, down 0.58% on the day.

U.S. Treasury yields dropped from four-month peaks after Trumps announcement.

Benchmark 10-year notes US10YT=RR last rose 5/32 in price to yield 0.7469%, from 0.762% late on Monday.

The 30-year bond US30YT=RR last rose 13/32 in price to yield 1.5501%, from 1.567% late on Monday.

Gold prices were lower after the safe-haven precious metal erased earlier gains.

Spot gold XAU= dropped 1.4% to $1,886.71 an ounce.

Reporting by Stephen Culp; additional reporting by Sinead Carew; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall

View original post here:

Big tech weighs on U.S., world equities, capping gains on Trump's improving health - Reuters

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

What if the U.S. government tries to restrain the power of Americas tech superstars, and it doesnt work?

Thats essentially what has happened so far in Europe, where some regulators and lawmakers have been ahead of the United States in putting guardrails on Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple.

I talked with my colleague Adam Satariano, who writes about technology in Europe, about what happens when government officials decide they want to do something about Big Tech, but struggle to figure out what that something should be.

Shira: Whats been Europes approach to the American tech superpowers?

Adam: Europe started doing antitrust investigations several years ago. But the resulting lawsuits and regulation havent done much.

Google is the best example. Investigations into allegations of anti-competitive tactics took years. The European Union then fined Google several billion dollars for breaking the law. But critics say that Google wasnt forced to change much, so this did little to restore competition.

What can American lawmakers and regulators learn from Europes mistakes?

Speed is crucial, otherwise regulators are fighting yesterdays battles.

There was also a problem with enforcement. Europe passed a highly-touted privacy law called General Data Protection Regulation, but its been a flop at limiting data collection by the biggest tech companies. Much of the policing of the law was left to Ireland, which simply doesnt have the resources to keep up.

It sounds as if the lesson is that you can believe theres a problem with tech companies power, but its hard to craft an appropriate response.

Without a doubt. The authorities in Europe are changing their tactics now. Theyre looking at rewriting laws to directly target the way big tech companies do business: How they use data or box out rivals, and ways they give their products preferential treatment.

But after a few years covering this in Europe, I have become much more suspect about these efforts at regulation. Theres a lot of potential for unintended consequences.

What have been the unintended consequences?

A big one is the ripple effects of several countries, especially Germany, making new rules against hate speech online. The worry is that gave cover to countries to enact censorship laws. Turkey cited Germanys hate speech law in enacting its new social media restrictions. Another law, known as the right to be forgotten, has also raised concerns about limiting the availability of information online.

Does this mean we should be skeptical about any U.S. government action against Big Tech?

Maybe. But its still been interesting to watch this growing realization among the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic about the size of these companies and the influence they hold over their democratic societies and how they operate, including their communication systems, information flow and commerce.

You can sense this feeling that lawmakers think they must do something, but arent quite sure what that is yet. The next 12 to 18 months are going to be extraordinary.

Hello, dear readers! Several of you had asked about differences in how the United States and Europe handle regulation of technology. This conversation gets the ball rolling on that subject. Please keep the questions coming. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

Twitter is in hot water with the U.S. government. Let me explain why you should be angry.

The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Twitter and may fine the company up to $250 million for using peoples phone numbers in ways that users didnt expect, my colleague Kate Conger wrote.

This stems from Twitters disclosure in October that the phone number you might have listed as a second form of account verification in addition to a password might also have been used to target advertisements at you. This is not good.

Phone numbers used for security purposes shouldnt be repurposed for Twitter to make money. Twitter said this was a mistake, but it hasnt said how long this practice had gone on or how it made this error. (Facebook had gotten in trouble for the same thing.)

There are two interrelated problems revealed by what might seem like Twitters minor flub.

First is the problem of companies ignoring common sense. People who enter a phone number to keep impostors out of their Twitter accounts do not expect that number to be used to target ads. Period. Therefore, companies should absolutely not do this.

Two, Twitters mistake is a symptom of the broader scourge of online surveillance. Internet advertising is an arms race waged with our data, and that leads to ever more intrusive harvesting and use of our information.

This is not only a concern for tin-foil-hat privacy paranoiacs. Companies like Facebook and Google have a big leg up over all other companies that sell digital ads because they have more and better data than anyone else. Every other company is tempted to play catch up by resorting to increasingly creepy ways of collecting user data.

That might include Twitter, or apps weve never heard of that gather our location information and sell it without our knowledge to other data-hungry companies. All the tech problems are connected.

I suspect people will have feelings about this: Stacey Steinberg, a childrens rights lawyer and photographer, says that parents sharing information, including photos, about their children online may unwittingly be providing fodder for bullying or child abuse. These risks have made her think twice before she shares information about her kids on social media.

Maybe this newsletter should just be memes? On Instagram and other apps, news organizations and activists have captivated audiences attention by posting less text and more charts, graphics and other easy-to-digest ways to convey news and information, according to Axios. This is a pattern that younger people latched onto a long time ago: Quick-scan visuals like memes are a great way to explain complicated things.

The online forum that traces the internets past five years: Wired has a fascinating look at a Reddit group about President Trump that became one of the most popular and divisive gatherings online. The article tells how this groups story encapsulated the evolution of internet forums in molding or policing peoples personal interactions and beliefs.

Check out these ethereal cuttlefish embryos bobbing around in their eggs. Yes, those tiny black dots are the cuttlefish babies eyes. (Thank you to an On Tech reader, Dr. Julie Drawbridge, for suggesting this video.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else youd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you dont already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

See original here:

When Taming Big Tech Goes Wrong - The New York Times

Guests: David Dayen, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Joshua Tucker

Big Tech CEOs were grilled before Congress last week about whether theyve become too dominant in the marketplace, stifling competition and harming consumer choice. Should Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon be regulated, even broken up? And whats all the hullabaloo over TikTok? Well talk about the tech giants, the anti-trust hearings and Trumps TikTok fight withThe American ProspectsDAVID DAYEN. Then, Twitter and Facebook have taken steps to crackdown in misinformation, including by President Trump. But are they doing enough to safeguard our democracy, especially in light of a new intelligence report that says that Russia once again is using social media to interfere in our election. Well talk withKATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON,professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg School for Communication andJOSHUA TUCKER, professor of politics and co-director of New York Universitys Center for Social Media and Politics about their concerns over social media, disinformation, and election meddling.

Read the original post:

Big Tech: monopolies, misinformation and election integrity - WHYY

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, the CEOs of some of the biggest tech giants in the world testified (virtually) before Congress. Some characterized the bipartisan questioning as a brutal beating, but others reported that not much new was accomplished.

These hearings are the current ones in a series of actions at the federal and local governments and have involved other big tech such as Microsoft as well as other industry service providers.

What can we learn? What were the impacts? How do these regulatory issues affect state and local governments? Most importantly, what can and should be done next by public and private sector leaders and their partners?

These are a few of the items I explore in this blog, with the help of long-time state government policy expert Andris Ozols who worked for many years with me in Michigan State Government before his retirement a few years back. Andris was also a significant contributor to my recent blog efforts on elections security.

Background on the Congressional Hearings

First, the media coverage of the testimony was widespread before, during and after the virtual event. Here are a few headlines and relevant excerpts:

Washington Post: Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google grilled on Capitol Hill over their market power

Excerpt: The leaders of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google took a brutal political lashing Wednesday as Democrats and Republicans confronted the executives for wielding their market power to crush competitors and amass data, customers and sky-high profits.

The rare interrogation played out over the course of a nearly six-hour hearing, with lawmakers on the Houses top antitrust subcommittee coming armed with millions of documents, hundreds of hours of interviews and in some cases the once-private messages of Silicon Valleys elite chiefs. They said it showed some in the tech sector had become too big and powerful, threatening rivals, consumers and, in some cases, even democracy itself.

NPR.org: Heads Of Amazon, Apple, Facebook And Google Testify On Big Tech's Power

Excerpt: Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., the subcommittee chairman, spent all of his first five-minute block of questions on Google the company at most immediate risk of 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 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.

New York Times: Lawmakers, United in Their Ire, Lash Out at Big Techs Leaders

Excerpt: The chief executives of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook, four tech giants worth nearly $5 trillion combined, faced withering questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike on Wednesday for the tactics and market dominance that had made their enterprises successful.

For more than five hours, the 15 members of an antitrust panel in the House lobbed questions and repeatedly interrupted and talked over Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google.

Forbes: Why Big Tech Should Regulate Itself

Excerpt: Big Tech faces two main options. They can go on acting as if nothing is amiss and hope that government action will take a long time to become a reality. Or they can take proactive steps to recognize the legitimacy of the issues and regulate themselves with a commitment to reengage with acting honorably and doing no evil. The latter course of action will be the smarter and less painful one.

Fox News: Big Tech backlash: Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon CEOs grilled on Capitol Hill

Excerpt: House lawmakers on Wednesday grilled the heads of some of the world's largest tech companies - with Democrats questioning whether the companies violated U.S. antitrust laws and stole from competitors, while Republicans slammedthem over alleged censorship and bias against conservatives.

BBC News (UK spelling) - Big Tech: What comes next for the US giants?

Excerpt: It's highly unlikely though that anything much will happen before the US elections in November.

As well as the presidential vote, all the seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as well as about a third of the Senate.

And so we reach a fork in the road for Big Tech in America.

A Republican win would probably see the tech giants scrutinised further over how they police free speech. Section 230 - which gives social media companies immunity from prosecution for what is published on their platforms - would probably be looked at.

If the Democrats win, expect more regulation in an attempt to inject more competition into the tech industry.

Consequences to State and Local Governments and Potential Actions

There are both direct and indirect consequences on state and local governments, and in order for the states and locals to both maximize the benefits as well as ameliorate the effects of regulations, the state and local governments need to understand these effects and their causes and work collaboratively among themselves and with the technology partners.

Collaboration involves shared assessments, solution design, programs, education and training, advocacy and more. Selected examples of collaboration and collaborative networks include:

Understanding State and Local Direct Impacts of Regulatory Issues

Direct impact issues are issues that are part of the federal review, litigation and hearing agendas as well as state Attorney General related agendas. Contested IT related issues involve direct business practices, platforms, hardware, software, services at variance with state and local government public values and ethics, policies, strategies, standards and agreements including accuracy, operations, outputs or outcomes.

Emphasis is placed on: State legal requirements; state and gubernatorial priorities; action and decisions needed for this decision cycle; potential for maximum effects on outcomes; facilitating integration, collaboration among governments; options available for sustained innovation involving the greatest range of state and local government services and customers.

1 - Direct effects of federal regulatory issues. Key issues identified in federal big tech, and related hearings include: Limiting options in services, decrease in control or discretion in managing services, decreased trust in government protection of security and privacy, accuracy and truthfulness of information.

2 - State and local regulatory issues. Key issues addressed in state Attorney General initiatives also include: Limiting options in services, decrease in control or discretion in managing services, decreased trust in government protection of security and privacy, accuracy and truthfulness of information.

Collaborative state initiatives announced last week for New York and California are accelerating the process and may provide new models for state and local initiatives. This article from The Guardian (UK) is entitled, New York unveils landmark antitrust bill that makes it easier to sue tech giants.

New YorkState is introducing a bill that would make it easier to sue big tech companies for alleged abuses of their monopoly powers. New York is Americas financial center and one of its most important tech hubs. If successfully passed, the law could serve as a model for future legislation across the country. It also comes as a federal committee is conducting ananti-trust investigationinto tech giants amid concerns that their unmatched market power is suppressing competition. Also, The New York Attorney General's office will join the California Attorney General's office and the Federal Trade Commission's investigation intoAmazon's online marketplace.

3 State, local and federal regulatory roles and balance. Balance in roles and authority in regulations is a policy and legal point of contention among levels of government and also determines how the regulatory issues are prioritized. This includes topic like what stakeholders need to be involved and timing for action. One of the NGA chairs priority issues for 2020 2021 will be federalism issues and questions of balance of roles and authority.

4 - State and local stakeholders and collaboration. States have established public and private sector collaborative networks (cite examples), but the current issues call for reinforcing relationships and strengthening ones with the National Governors Association (NGA), fiscal officers (https://www.nasbo.org/home ), procurement National Association of State Procurement Officials - NASPO , auditors NASACT , legislators (National Conference of State Legislatures) and their associations. Also, the perspectives of federal Congressional and Executive branch assessment and design resources such as the Partnership for Public Service, U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), General Services Administration, Congressional Budget Office and public policy administrators would be helpful, including ASPA - https://www.aspanet.org/ASPA/

Understanding Indirect Impacts: Information, Procurement, Smart, Digital Government and Public Sector Policy and Procedural Issues

Indirect issues are those resulting from direct IT services such as hardware, software, services, outputs serving as IT inputs that support or enable other functions, processes, programs or services. In addition to processes and services, these may also affect policies, standards, decision-making, customer values, perceptions, satisfaction and trust.

In particular, these issues and how they are resolved help define and pre-structure the options available for smart, digital communities and governments.

1 Information Control and Management. Information and information management is a foundational issue, the wizard behind the curtain. Ownership, control, accuracy, misinformation and information management plays a central role in a number of the support platforms for smart, digital government - such as internet of things, big data analytics, facial recognition, mobile and location aware services, cloud, integrated and autonomous AI.

2 Procurement. Procurement management is the gateway to public / private relationships, partnerships, standards, performance, accountability, policy and value alignment, etc. Includes RFIs, RFSs, RFPs and contracts. National Association of State Procurement Officials - NASPO is a crucial partner on this issue and NASCIO has a strong established relationship.

3 Smart, Digital Government. Smart, digital government and communities and cities are vital constructs describing the connection, integration of technologies to transform how governments, citizens and businesses interact. Some of the regulatory issues can impact on smart government priorities; timing and scheduling; platforms; information ownership; integrity of personal identity; privacy; security; accuracy and reliability; processes; state and local government control; public trust and others.

While many roadmaps for smart governments and communities address the role of regulations, not all of them do, and the pandemic as well as the overlap of the flu and hurricane seasons will further accentuate the risks. In general state and local assessments, policies, standards, plans and roadmaps do not consistently address the role of regulations or the consequences of not complying. However, there are sufficient examples and models such as NGA work on Smart Transportation and Smart Energy roadmap, with sections on regulations from the Smart Community and State Initiative that can serve as models.

4 - Key State and Local Service Sectors. There are differential regulatory effects among service sectors and realignment of priorities and solutions. For example, differential effect of selected platforms on IT supported health and education services, distance learning and work, election processes, security, disaster management and recovery.

5 Key 2020 2021 Events and Decision Points. The juxtaposition of the sustained pandemic, hurricane season, pending flu season in context of the election, economic disruptions a revenue and budget short-falls are altering priorities, reducing funding allocation levels, stressing state and local service capabilities and calls for modifications in disaster and management and recovery approaches and the supporting platforms in which Big Tech is involved.

Recommendations for Collaborative Action

The public sector IT community needs to work together in both recognizing the benefits of Big Tech and integrator services as well as addressing and resolving adverse effects. This needs to involve both the public and private sector communities and build upon existing networks and public private partnership models.

The following recommendations address both the three-month cycle before the election, the three months after the election, and reference issues for potential future action.

The next five or six month period covers the front end of most state and local government assessment, design and development cycles and also includes a number of state and local association and support group working sessions and planned deliverables that could include a regulatory issue perspective. The following state/local groups share a collaborative history and are illustrative of potential opportunities and next steps regarding non-profits supporting state and local governments:

National Governors Association (NGA) - https://www.nga.org/

Follow-up to federalism issue after the Summer 2020 virtual session can include both infrastructure and regulatory issues from an IT perspective.

The Smart Transportation and Smart Energy roadmap sections on regulations, from the Smart Community and State Initiative can be one of the inputs in developing shared templates.

National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) http://www.nascio.org

Center for Digital Government (CDG) https://www.govtech.com/cdg/about/

Public Technology Institute (PTI) / CompTIA https://www.pti.org/

The Partnership for Public Service, a leading example from the federal level, with private sector partners that are shared with the state and local associations, has developed a series of information technology opportunity assessments and designs for infusing technology in federal government operations, with long-term support by IT integrators and service providers such as Deloitte, Accenture and IBM, as well as broad-scope management consultants such as Booz Allan Hamilton, Ernst Young and others. Examples include:

More Recommendations For Collaborative Action

1 Advocacy on Federal Hearing Report. Coordinate state and local advocacy on the pending federal hearing report and recommendations as well as follow-up with the Executive branch and Congress.

2 Potential IT Related Advocacy and Potential Participation State AG Initiatives. Develop a coordinated and collaborative state and local review of AG initiatives from an IT perspective and recommendations, including the New York and California proposed actions. The federal hearings and NY initiatives can be fulcrums for state and local IT related actions and may serve as models for selected state actions.

3 Enhance Role of Regulations in State and Local IT Policies, Strategies, Operations, Roadmaps and Advocacy. Collectively develop templates for addressing regulations in state and local policy and procedural guidelines, including procurement, operational and performance management, audits and others.

4 Conduct an Assessment and Recommendations of IT and Regulatory Effect and Support Capabilities for Pandemic Effects and Election Processes. Conduct a collaborative assessment of the capabilities and opportunities of IT support for the pandemic and election process, other pending emergencies and potential interactions with the regulatory issues. Develop recommendations for state leadership, NGA, NCSL and federal government.

5 Develop a Forum for IT Stakeholder Collaboration on Regulatory Issues. Identify scope of potential stakeholders for supporting recommendations and further action, and develop a forum for organizing a state, local, federal and private sector collaborative. This forum can be a Web based forum, perhaps hosted as part of the NASCIO virtual fall session.

Final Thoughts

Back in 2018, Deloitte Consulting wrote this: Regulations or absence of regulations can also alter or limit both direct government operations as well as stakeholder, customer benefits, and limit development or innovation options. As new business models and services emerge, such as ride-sharing services and initial coin offerings, government agencies are challenged with creating or modifying regulations, enforcing them, and communicating them to the public at a previously undreamed-of pace. And they must do this while working within legacy frameworks and attempting to foster innovation.

Here is another excellent piece by Deloitte on regulation and cybersecurity: National security and technology regulation. I also think it worth reviewing these biggest takeaways from the Washington Post on the antitrust hearings.

CNBCs expert analysts believe these companies will never be broken-up due to the U.S. desire to compete with companies from China and elsewhere. Nevertheless, they also say there is likely more regulation coming.

In a surprising twist, Fast Company Magazine wrote last week that: The Big Tech antitrust hearing was a PR boost for Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple.

One thing is clear: Well be back to cover this topic many times in the coming years. The issues are not going away.

Time to do your homework and get ready for more in 2021 and beyond - regardless of who wins the upcoming election.

Looking for the latest gov tech news as it happens? Subscribe to GT newsletters.

Here is the original post:

Impacts and Recommendations After Big Tech Congressional Testimony - GovTech

Monopolistic companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple and others have become far too powerful.

They thwart competition and abuse their power, whether its by failing to protect users privacy and data or controlling one of our most basic freedomsfree speechin hopes of influencing, if not swaying, elections. These actions warrant congressional intervention, especially given Silicon Valleys well-known political bias against conservativesincluding the president of the United States of America. President Donald Trumps tweets are routinely fact-checked and censored, for example, while those of his political opponents are not.

This rigged system has far-reaching consequences that, among other things, shape public opinion and culture and taint Americas standing in the worldwhile diminishing our collective rights.

Take Apple. If you ask Siri what demon means, she says an evil spirit or devil, especially one thought to possess a person or act as a tormentor in hell. The second definition Siri offers is a cruel, evil, or destructive person or thing. Now, brace yourself for Siris third definitiona police officer.

This prompted a terse response from GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, who tweeted Thursday:

Big Tech Bias in America is realand its disgusting. Apples Siri defines demon as a police officer.

Apple needs to answer for why theyre instigating this kind of hate in America.

Indeed. Especially when you consider that as of April 2017 there were 728 million iPhones in use worldwide, according to Statista, including at least 100 million users in the U.S.

The far-left radicals at Apple are indoctrinating users to believe law enforcement officers are demons. This not only maligns police officers character, including Black cops and other minorities in uniform, but also puts cops lives at risk given todays extremely volatile political climate.

Then theres Twitter silencing conservatives en masse. Late last month, the social network censored tweets by the president and his son Donald Trump Jr. for sharing a viral video of doctors speaking about the purported benefits of hydroxychloroquine, a controversial medicine that some experts claim helps COVID-19 patients.

A Henry Ford Health System study shows the controversial anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine helps lower the death rate of COVID-19 patients, the Detroit-based health system said Thursday, reported the Detroit News. Officials with the Michigan health system said the study found the drug significantly decreased the death rate of patients involved in the analysis.

Nonetheless, the overlords at Twitter still censored the tweets.

But thats not all. Google, Facebook and Twitter have also been censoring the right-leaning news site Breitbart, according to its news editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow. This week, Marlow told Tucker Carlson on his Fox News program that Breitbarts Google search traffic is down over 99% since May. If you want to search for Joe Biden or Biden, the chances of you getting a Breitbart article are virtually zero, Marlow told Carlson.

See how election meddling works?

Conservative voices are being silenced across the spectrumleading up to the November electionwhile those on the left continue to get full access to voters.

This corrupt system cannot stand in a democracy.

Adriana Cohen is a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16.

See the original post here:

Cohen: It's time to break up Big Tech - Gazettextra

The state of New York introduced a bill on Wednesday that would make easier for the state to sue companies if they are seen to be unilaterally violating antitrust issues.

The bill comes on the heels of the House's antitrust hearing when Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Alphabet CEO Satya Nadella, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified.

"Our antitrust laws are about a century old and were built for a different economy," Senator Michael Gianaris, D-NY., the sponsor of the bill, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "In some ways, what we're trying to do is match what the federal government has the power to do."

Gianaris was outspoken against Amazon's HQ2 move to Long Island City in 2019, his district, a move that earned him the nickname "The Amazon Killer."

He argued existing antitrust laws aren't equipped to tackle the ways tech companies like Google and Amazon interact with their competition today.

"You have behavior that was not contemplated when this law was originally written," Gianaris said. "No one could see a search engine which could prioritize one's own products over competitors, or incentivizing people or punishing them based on the relationship the search engine has."

"We want to give our Attorney General the power, in this new economy, to stifle anti-competitive behavior that is often the result of a single actor acting alone," Gianaris said.

New York can't currently take action against an anti-competitive move unless two companies are collaborating and conspiring to stifle competition. Those actions typically manifest in price-setting or a merger between two companies.

The proposed bill, titled the 21st Century Antitrust Act, would update those laws, so that legal action can be taken against a company if it's shown to be acting in an anti-competitive manner. It would also allow for class-action lawsuits to be brought against companies.

"Federally, you can bring action for unilateral behavior. We're trying to give New York the tools to do the same thing,"Sen. Gianaris said.

The bill would also update the penalties: a violation would be classified as a Class C felony, rather than a Class E felony as it currently stands. The maximum fine would also be changed from $100,000 to $1 million, and the maximum prison sentence from four years to 15 years.

The 21st Century Antitrust Act is unlikely to pass before the end of the year, as the state senate is currently in recess, but it already has the support of New York's Attorney General, Letitia James. "While our state's antitrust laws remain essential to these protections, we support legislation to strengthen them further to meet the challenges of today's economy," James said.

More:

New York proposes antitrust bill that would make it easier to sue big tech - CNBC

How can we make the best of a bad situation in school?

When Bob Riefstahl founded2Win! Globalalmost 20 years ago, he was ahead of his time. His company provides winning pre-sales, client-success skills, and culture guidance for technology companies. Today, his clients include IBM, Adobe, CISCO, Siemens, and Microsoft.

However, in the beginning, things were quite different.

Riefstahl says, "When we started, software sales were stuck in the past. Big tech companies like IBM had a particular way of doing things, and most of the smaller companies emulated the big boys. Had that not changed, companies like Big Blue (IBM) may have fallen by the wayside. Technology is a two-step process that includes both development and sales.

He also states, The greatest technology in the world is meaningless if nobody buys it."

At the time, Riefstahl and crew began peddling what they knew. Technology companies listened, and the result has been a seismic shift in the economy of the world.

Riefstahl saw a need for technology companies to come out of the shadows and deliver what Riefstahl believed was a beneficial evolution in the way people were able to use and prosper from technology. Many believe that his company and way of doing business were an essential part of the technology revolution.

But now, Riefstahl sees a different need.

"Education has needed a technological wake-up call for some time. With the Coronavirus pandemic forcing learning online, that call is happening too quickly delivering punishing blows to our teachers because they don't have the correct knowledge and training to teach online successfully. Like anything else, teaching and delivering presentations online is a learned behavior," states Riefstahl.

Just like in 2001, when Riefstahl was motivated to help technology companies succeed, he now wants to help children learn in a new virtual world.

He states, "Plain and simple, children are the world's future, and I have two sons who were both products of the public school system, and both excelled in their careers. If we can help teachers that work with kids in very diverse school systems, we can create a better world."

Riefstahl believes his company's expertise and experience in the business sector can translate well in the education sector.

They train the largest and most successful technology companies in the world to use soft-skills to help them connect with prospective buyers of their products in a virtual environment.

Their most deep-rooted focus is on the product presentation and demonstration, and they base it on neuro-linguistic programming.

Riefstahl realized the same techniques that his company uses to teach to some of the most talented and highly paid workers in the world could be effective with the teacher and student experience.

They teach people how to be effective communicators during in-personandvirtual engagementsand have been doing so using virtual classrooms for over ten years.

Riefstahl's virtual training started in 2008, and he saw the immediate benefit and impact by leveraging a flip-the-classroom approach.

When the pandemic broke, rather than experiencing a loss in business, Riefstahl's business began to accelerate.

He says, "I have many friends who are teachers or know teachers, and many are struggling with virtual classrooms. At that point, I realized our methods, with some modifications, could be a lifeline to teachers and students."

Rather than testing the water, Riefstahl and 2Win! Global have jumped in the deep end, and he has big expectations in his company's ability to help educators.

He says, "Now and in the future, we want teachers to feel empowered, inspired, and enthused about teaching in the unfamiliar medium of virtual. We have found that our same classes taught virtually produce as good of a result as in-person classes. We want students to have that same experience."

Riefstahl hired Joan Jahelka, a lifelong educator and fellow Colorado resident, to lead the company's first offering, theClassroom 2.0series, set to debut in mid-August.

They will deliver the series into three parts:

Module One: To help teachers understand how to set up their home and teaching virtually.

Module Two: To help teachers understand the soft-skills necessary to transform their virtual instruction. This module will help to ensure the student learning experience and retention are the best.

Module Three: To help teachers and administrators understand the nuances of child privacy in virtual instruction. All the modules will be delivered in a crisp, micro-learning style using two to five-minute video segments.

Riefstahl's team at 2Win! Global believes that the education division could eventually become profitable, but that is not their primary concern.

"This goal is much more of a charitable offering on our part, and much less about profit. Our price points on this course are such that we believe it would take years to cover our costs. That's okay, because our motivation is about making a difference to kids and teachers," said Riefstahl.

[BR1]I was planning on naming it "Classroom 2.0". Does that work?

More here:

How This Technology Sales Leader Is Guiding Teachers Toward Instructional Enlightenment - Forbes

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows says the Trump administration is contemplating some type of regulation for social media companies as part of the COVID-19 relief legislation being negotiated with Congress.

As much as Im a guy that says that the social media companies should be able to have their ownwhat I would call a wild, wild West way of doing things Im over it, Meadows said Friday in a livestream interview with American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp.

This censorship has gotten to the point where if they are going to censor, then Im going to make sure they are regulated, Meadows said, reflecting President Donald Trumps thinking.

During the week, Twitter removed a post by Trump that correctly stated children are less likely to get COVID-19 than adults. In May, Twitter issued a questionable fact check on one of Trumps tweets on problems with mail-in voting.

In addition to Trump, there have been other cases of technology companies censorship of conservatives, including YouTubes blocking of The Heritage Foundation and Prager University.

Trump issued an executive order in April that lifted some of the protection the social media platforms enjoyed under the Communications Decency Act. However, an executive order lacks the power of legislation.

Meadows, who represented North Carolinas 11th Congressional District from 2013 until becoming Trumps chief of staff last March, wasnt clear on the specifics of what any proposed legislation might involve.

The president has, as you know, put forth a few executive orders, but even in this packagewell make news herewere looking at, What do we do with regard to some of the protections that social media companies have? he said.

Social media platforms have not faced regulations as broadcast media have. Nor could they be held liable for information on their platforms as print or online media could, because they arent publishers per se.

However, the platforms have come under scrutiny for picking and choosing content, while not facing accountability.

We ought to address that in this package we have right nowin the emergency package, Meadows said. Were talking about freedom of the press, freedom of expression. And yet what we have are a number of companies that have decided on what should be communicated and what should not be communicated. And it is very troubling.

The chief of staff continued:

Weve seen videos taken down. Weve seen posts taken down. Ultimately, if youre allowing the social media companies to be the determiner of free speech, youre in a very dangerous place.

I spoke to the president last night about actually addressing that in this particular package.

Meadows later added:

Its perfectly fine for every employee of those social media companies to advocate personally for their candidate of choice, whether its the far left or the far right, or someone in between. Thats America.

Its totally inappropriate for those same people who work at a company to allow the company to put, really, the market cap and the power of these big social media companies on that level, on that scale of justice, to say we are going to determine what you see and what you view, and what is right and what is wrong. Its inappropriate.

The CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google testified July 29 before the House Judiciary Committees antitrust, commercial, and administrative law subcommittee, and denied any political bias.

Still, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, noted during the hearing that Google temporarily removed the home pages of Breitbart and The Daily Caller and threatened to demonetize The Federalist.All three are conservative media outlets.

Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James weighed in on the hearing.

Jordan, who succeeded Meadows as the committees ranking Republican, said the Amazon Smile program wont allow Amazon customers to give charitable donations to some conservative groups, such as Family Research Council or Alliance Defending Freedom, but allows charitable donations to Planned Parenthood.

Go here to see the original:

White House Weighs Bill in Response to Big Tech on Free Speech - Daily Signal

When I saw todays unemployment number, the first thing I did was to figure out how to short some of the biggest stocks Silicon Valley has produced.

Were betting against Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) now in our Turbo Trader and High Octane Trader services, respectively. It isnt so much that I think either of these trillion-dollar behemoths is on the brink of disaster since the recent earnings cycle has proved that these companies are run by smart people with vast resources. Both companies will thrive.

But with so many people on Wall Street crowding into the top of the technology tree in the pandemics wake, these stocks have simply gotten too far ahead of themselves. After all, the NASDAQ is up a stunning 25% year to date in what government economists still consider a recession, while the S&P 500 is barely positive over the same time.

If anything, MSFT and AMZN have kept the broad market out of negative territory. Thats all right when technology is the only thing working in the global economy. However, when U.S. employers outside Silicon Valley start cautiously hiring again, its time for smart money to come out of the high-tech bunker and get back in the game.

Beyond the Digital Screen

Big Tech gets most of the love with people who spend their lives behind a screen, but for the rest of us, the physical world remains where all the real action is.

Pure technology stocks still only account for 25% of the S&P 500 and only employ a small fraction of the U.S. population. Even if you pull Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) and Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) back from the communications sector, technology just isnt the real heart of the economy.

As trite as it sounds to the people in Silicon Valley, the heart of the economy remains small businesses. I am talking about construction, convenience retail and independent restaurants, not to mention local schools, banks, hospitals and professional offices.

When the local economy starts suffering, it doesnt really matter how much cloud computing capacity Amazon and Microsoft sell. Sooner or later, well all feel the chill.

And when the local economy strikes back, smart money breathes a sigh of relief. I cant wait to start buying airlines, mall retail and community banks again.

Every step the job market moves forward takes us closer to that moment. Progress is good.

But investors who convinced themselves that Big Tech and vaccines are the only things in the world that are still working now see good news as a bad thing. Suddenly, their stocks need to compete for capital and market leadership.

Today demonstrated that good news for Main Street is now seen as bad news for Silicon Valley stocks. Look at AMZN and MSFT today. Theyve come a long way and now its time they step back.

My Turbo Trader subscribers booked a 25% win today on a put option trade in MSFT. All we had to do was acknowledge that this gigantic stock would find it difficult to push much farther beyond $210 in the immediate future.

Thats all it takes to make money in a brittle market environment. Maybe one day far from now, MSFT and its peers will rule the world. Today, theyre still subject to the basic law of gravity.

Where are we rolling our money instead? For me, the strongest investment strategy always starts by locking in enough income to pay the bills.

Value Authority is where we concentrate on solid old-economy stocks that pay bigger yields than what youd get from MSFT or the U.S. government, for that matter. Until Big Tech takes a big dip, we need to be patient before those stocks are attractive.

When regular dividends are coming in, we can afford to be patient. Thats the approach I recently recommended for TD Ameritrade clients. (Watch the video.)

And as for Main Street, we look at the real business of America every week on my Millionaire Makerradio show. (Click here for recorded episodes and local stations.)

Read the original here:

The Time Has Come for Main Street to Show Big Tech How Its Done - Stock Investor

Big Tech Companies are Making Climate Change Commitments, but Are They Actually Impactful?

Many large companies like Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are rethinking their supply chains and carbon footprints after pressure from consumers and employees to address their role in climate change. Heres what these groups are doing, and experts take on their effectiveness.

While your short showers and LED lights help in the overall fight against climate change, massive corporations play a massive role in the climate crisis. Their carbon footprints, energy and water use and high volume of disposable/non-recyclable products greatly affect the environmental systems at play.

Luckily, some Big Tech leaders are starting to recognize their role. However, many are choosing to help is not-very-helpful ways, like through carbon offsets.

Earlier this month, Apple became the latest Big Tech giant to promise 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.

This idea of net-zero climate impact involves both direct changes in systems and indirect, reallocation of funds outside the company. Apple will reduce emissions by 75 percent in its manufacturing chain by recycling more components of its products and encouraging its suppliers to use renewable energy. For the remaining 25 percent, the company plans to balance them by funding reforestation projects and improving energy efficiency in its operations.

However, climate activists note that these offsetting, funding efforts are inadequate, as they do little to actually change and redefine the systems the companies utilize. Companies that offset emissions through external funding 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 changeand be reduced to zero by 2050.

Want to learn more about carbon offsets? Reach this article by GreenBiz.

Read the original here:

Big Tech Companies are Making Climate Change Commitments, but Are They Actually Impactful? - EP Magazine

Last week, US lawmakers hauled the heads of four giant tech companies into a virtual antitrust hearing, ostensibly over concerns their companies are too big.

This week, the president of the United States is sort-of-kind-of-maybe trying to help a different giant US tech company become even bigger by forcing the Chinese owners of TikTok to sell it to Microsoft.

There are all kinds of perspectives on a potential sale of TikTok from ByteDance to Microsoft. Some rational people think its a good idea: They dont want the popular social video app with a huge presence in the US to be controlled by a Chinese company because Chinese companies are, in various ways, extensions of the Chinese government.

Others quite rightly worry about potential retaliation from China against US companies that do business in that country, as well as the breakdown of the entire concept of an open internet.

But it seems to me that one of the striking parts of the whole deal would be that the US government, which says it worries about the reach and power of its homegrown tech giants, is now actively encouraging a deal that would supersize one of those giants.

Which suggests that the US isnt really worried about the reach and power of its tech giants.

Caveat time! There are many confounding, surprising, and improbable components to the ByteDance-TikTok-Microsoft-White House-China story, which is very much a moving target. This afternoon, for instance, Donald Trump insisted that in order for the deal to go through, the US government would have to get a very substantial portion of any sale price if Microsoft does buy TikTok from ByteDance.

Trump, of course, says all kinds of things, all the time. Many of those things are not true. But if he actually means it this time, it means the deal looks much less likely than it did a few hours earlier.

And while were at it, lets be clear that its hard to make a real antitrust argument against a Microsoft-TikTok deal, at least as antitrust law works in the US right now: TikTok may worry the social media giant Facebook, but Facebook still dwarfs TikTok; same thing for Googles YouTube. Facebook, for instance, says it has 256 million users in the US and Canada; TikTok says it is at 100 million.

Its also not a coincidence that Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was not in Washington last week, testifying along with the heads of Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. With the exception of its Xbox gaming platform, Microsoft has a very modest consumer internet presence in the US psyche*. If any big tech company is going to acquire TikTok, it would be Microsoft.

But lets also be very clear: While Microsoft has turned itself into a giant tech company that focuses on business customers, it is still very much a Giant Tech Company one that the US government spent years trying to break up because of the way it abused its status as the dominant computer operating system in the 1990s.

In its last 12 months, Microsoft generated a staggering $143 billion in revenue for context, thats two Facebooks. And while its growth is coming from enterprise customers and cloud services, Microsoft still dominates personal computers. If youre not reading this on a phone or tablet, the odds are very high youre reading this on a Microsoft Windows-powered machine.

In short: If you were worried about the concentration of tech power in the US, you wouldnt add the most consequential new social media platform in years to a company that made $44 billion in profits four Amazons last year. (That said! In the near term, Facebook execs wont complain while Microsoft figures out, structurally and technically, how to separate TikTok from its current owner/operators and rebuild large portions of it. Big companies usually expect to take a year or more to swallow up a significant acquisition; this one could be way more difficult.)

If US lawmakers were truly concerned about the power of tech giants, they would actively be debating laws to rein that in, instead of punting the work to enforcement agencies like the DOJ and the FTC. And an entire faction of US politicians wouldnt spend their time in important antitrust hearings focusing on made-up claims that big internet companies are bad because they censor conservatives.

If anything, you could argue that a TikTok sale to Microsoft makes it even less likely that well see real antitrust movement against Google or Facebook. If that deal goes through, both companies can credibly argue that TikTok is now an even fiercer rival because it has Microsoft behind it.

Again: Im happy to entertain arguments for or against TikTokSoft its a genuinely fascinating and important inflection point for tech and world politics. But next time you tell me the US government is Very Worried About Big Tech, youre going to have work much harder to convince me.

* Not for lack of trying: If Microsoft had succeeded in its attempt to buy Yahoo many years ago, or if it hadnt burned billions trying to build a consumer ad business, maybe things would be different.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Visit link:

Why Trump is in favor of the China-owned TikTok sale to Microsoft - Vox.com