Monthly Archives: May 2021

Big Tech is bouncing back.

Technology names partially recovered from a vicious sell-off in the latter part of Tuesday's trading session, though all three of the major averages remained in the red.

Many market analysts saw this coming, but some were split on how much investors should worry about tech's pullback.

Here's what five of them told CNBC amid Tuesday's action:

Duquesne Family Office CEO Stanley Druckenmiller said the market's "mania" could push his firm out of equities by the end of 2021:

"I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that we are in a raging mania in all assets. I also have no doubt that I don't have a clue when that's going to end. I knew we were in a raging mania in '99 and it kept going on and if you had shorted tech stocks, say, in mid-'99, you were out of business by the end of the year. But we are still long the stock market. We're not as long, nearly as long, as we were four or five months ago. We're still playing the game. We've shifted a lot of our relative bets into commodities, into interest rates, into the dollar. All those shifts occurred last, say, August to October when it became clear to us that the recovery was going. But I will be surprised if we're not out of the stock market by the end of the year."

Tom Lee, head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, flagged five headwinds facing Big Tech:

"There have been five headwinds for tech that feel like they're coming to a head. One of the overarching problems with tech starting this year is it's a crowded and stale long. People piled into these names last year because of the collapse of the economy and the pandemic, but now we have potential inflation building, interest rates going up. The White House could go after technology. The economy, not everyone believes it, but it looks like we're set for a full reopen by June. And then capital gains could go up. Five of five of these is bad for the technology and growth trade, especially capital gains. More than 70[%] or 80% of all capital gains are just in a handful of sectors. And on the other hand, the epicenter trade wins on five of five of these. So, if only one or two of these flips and in fact happens, epicenter stocks are to keep rallying and tech can weaken."

Lew Piantedosi, vice president and co-director of growth equity at Eaton Vance Management, also highlighted several obstacles for tech:

"I think that the sell-off is justified given the meteoric rise that a lot of these stocks exhibited, particularly post the initial stages of Covid. And given where we are right now, there's four real headwinds to most areas of tech, and namely the fear of higher rates, tougher comparisons going forward, particularly for those that have benefited from Covid, corporate tax reform, which is something that isn't being discussed right now, but it will have an impact on tech more so than other areas of the market, and then lastly, particularly for mega-cap tech, I think we're seeing more and more antitrust headwinds starting to pick up as well. So, all of those headwinds kind of come together at a time where there's other areas of the market that will benefit from a recovering economy that had been neglected by the market for the last few years and now are starting to see a real resurgence."

Ritholtz Wealth Management CEO Josh Brown, who is also a CNBC contributor, said the market was producing a kind of "wealth effect":

"All of the inflation that you're seeing right now is being driven by the wealth effect from the stock market. So, if there's enough fear about inflation or if the Fed is somehow forced to act quickly or forcefully which I don't think they're going to do, but let's just say that's the thing you're worried about and that's the thing that's producing volatility in the stock market well, that's great, because it's a self-correcting system. The Fed will move or the market will move or both. That will take the juice out of the stock market. No more inflation problem. Everybody that you know that's remodeling their house why do you think they're doing that? Because their 401(k) became a 601(k) and they had to cancel a whole bunch of activities during the pandemic, which saved them money. All of the wealth effect is coming from the stock market. So, if you think inflation is a threat, just understand something: If stocks cool off, that threat will be neutralized. People will come right back to this idea of, 'Well, what else do I do with my money?' and go right back into stocks."

Victoria Fernandez, chief market strategist at Crossmark Global Investments, said investors shouldn't worry just yet:

"I'm not sure I would say it's cause for concern. I do think you have to pay attention to what's going on in the markets right now, but we really feel like the markets have just kind of gotten a little heavy, to use a word of one of my colleagues. The months leading up to now, we've seen the trend higher. We've had a really strong earnings season. I mean, you look at the [earnings per share] growth and we're going to be double what expectations were a couple months ago. So, I think the market has gotten a little bit heavy, so, having a pullback, having a little consolidation, is OK. We actually think that [the] tech sector, led by some of those high-flying names to the downside, maybe that's getting to a bottom right now and if you don't own them it could be a buying opportunity. But we really like looking at more of some of those secular growth names. It can still be in the tech area. It could be a name like an Nvidia or a name like Adobe. But we don't think there's cause for extreme concern for the entire sector."

Disclaimer

View original post here:

Big Tech bounces back from sell-off. What five market analysts are watching now - CNBC

Facebook Oversight Board upholds Trump ban

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows calls out double standard after the Facebook Oversight Board upheld the social media platform's ban on former President Trump.

Facebooks decision to uphold its suspension of former President Donald Trumps account underscores that Big Tech corporations are attempting to control what the American people are allowed to say and hear.

Last week, I introduced the 21st Century FREE Speech Act, which would ensure that our modern public square is governed by the First Amendment principles of free speech and open exchange of ideas, not the whims of Big Tech censors. Facebooks disappointing announcement today highlights the urgent need for this legislation.

Dominant, ubiquitous Big Tech platforms are increasingly choosing which speakers and messages are approved for public discussion, using opaque, inconsistent, and politically motivated moderation practices that change by the day.

So, here we are, with an unelected and unaccountable "oversight board" of academics, journalists, lawyers, and activists determining whether a former United States president who recently received 74 million votes from the American public may participate in the modern-day public square.

JONATHAN TURLEY: FACEBOOK VS. TRUMP BIG TECH HAS ALLOWED FOR THE CREATION OF A STATE MEDIA WITHOUT THE STATE

As the former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I dealt on a daily basis with China. This type of censorship regime is what I would have expected from the Chinese Communist Party, not Silicon Valley. It is un-American.

Censorship like this tramples on the foundational principles of free speech, freedom of thought and belief, free assembly, and the open exchange of ideas that have always animated American education and progress.

Telephone companies do not shut off your phone line based on what political views you express during calls.The same logic should apply today to Big Tech.

In 2020, then-President Trump ran not just against Joe Biden, but also against the establishment media and Big Tech. In my assessment, Big Tech which ran interference for the Biden campaign on numerous fronts, including by blocking the account of the New York Post for its reporting on Hunter Biden was the most formidable opponent of all.

In private, several of my Democratic colleagues have expressed similar concerns to me regarding the power these Big Tech corporations now wield over American life. They understand that the tide can turn quickly: today, Democrats political adversary is censored, but tomorrow they may become the victim of that same censorship.This is why censorship is fundamentally inconsistent with American values.

TRUMP BAN: REPUBLICANS THREATEN TO BREAK UP FACEBOOK AFTER OVERSIGHT BOARD DECISION

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a recent Supreme Court opinion, common carriers such as trains or telephone networks, which are essential to everyday goings-on in connecting people and information have historically been subject "to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers" without discrimination.

Telephone companies do not shut off your phone line based on what political views you express during calls.The same logic should apply today to Big Tech.

This is especially true given Big Techs unique control over todays public square. A series of court decisions has limited the extent to which political figures can delete comments or bar users from interacting with their social media posts, noting that the First Amendment does not permit politicians to pick and choose who interacts with them in the public square.

Likewise, we should not allow Big Tech to decide which political figures are allowed to participate in the public square: it is absurd that President Trump is legally prohibited from limiting individual Twitter users comments to him, while Twitter is permitted to ban President Trump from the platform entirely.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

My legislation is necessary to address this issue because our laws haven't kept pace with technology.The statutes governing free speech online haven't been updated in a quarter-century.

Since it was passed in 1996, Section 230 has been stretched well beyond its original intentwhich was to promote the free exchange of ideas online and specific types of family-friendly moderationinto a license for companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor.

In its effort to encourage family-friendly moderation, Congress specifically permitted moderation of obscene, lewd, or excessively violent content. It also permitted moderation of "otherwise objectionable" content, and Big Tech has exploited this vague term, using it as a license to censor whatever it pleases. This was not Congresss purpose, nor could Congress have then imagined the behemoth tech corporations that now dominate our ability to communicate.

The 21st Century FREE Speech Act would: (1) abolish Section 230s license to censor, (2) treat Big Tech platforms with more than 100 million active monthly users worldwide like a common carrier that must provide reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to all consumers to prevent political censorship, and (3) require Big Tech platforms to disclose their content management and moderation practices to users, so that consumers can better assess the information they receive.

Specifically, my bill would abolish Section 230 in favor of a liability protection framework that restores that sections original intent, updated based on the effects of the enormous technological change over the past 25 years.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Liability protection would remain for third-party speech and family-friendly moderation of specifically defined obscene or violent content, without providing limitless special protection for platforms own speech and viewpoint censorship. This legislation provides the liability protection necessary to drive continued innovation, without giving companies a license to censor speech on political, religious, or other grounds.

Ultimately, the 21st Century FREE Speech Act is about promoting free speech, thought and exchange of ideas. Its about trusting Americansrather than Big Tech companies and their "independent oversight boards"to determine what information to consume, share, and believe.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. BILL HAGERTY

View original post here:

Sen. Bill Hagerty: Facebook vs. Trump -- Big Tech's censorship regime out of control. Here's how we fix it - Fox News

Despite the national decline and fewer posted remote positions, tech roles remained in demand in hubs such as San Francisco, Seattle, Austin and Washington, D.C., according to a new report from Indeed.

Image: iStock/UlrichBeinert

Tech jobs, like tech workers themselves, are iconoclasts. A newly released study from Indeed showed that unlike industries with businesses that were forced to shutter and suffered job losses, the major tech hubs held onto technology roles throughout the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 crisis, a majority of businesses quickly transitioned from on-premises to sending their employees to work from home, yet the tech job postings in the big tech hubs were actually less likely to mention remote work than tech job listings in areas other than those major tech hubs.

For a year starting in March 2020, non-remote tech job postings became even more concentrated in big tech hubs than tech postings in general. Remote work benefited tech employers outside of the major tech hubs because, Indeed reported, there were fewer specialized tech workers in those local markets.

The eight major tech hubs--Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Raleigh, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle and Washington, D.C.--experienced lags in overall job postings, as did most U.S. cities, with plunges in March and April of 2020, and were challenged by slow recoveries. Indeed reported that on April 23, 2021, Indeed job postings in the big tech hubs were only 5% above pre-pandemic baselines, compared to 24% above baseline in other metropolitan areas.

The eight major tech hubs are metro areas with a population of at least 1 million that had the highest number of local job postings in software development in the year before the pandemic. There are also 24 metro areas considered the smaller tech centers. These have populations between 250,000 and 1 million, and have the most local job postings in software development during the same period, the year before the pandemic.

SEE:2021 IT budget research report: COVID-19's impact on projects and priorities(TechRepublic Premium)

Actual tech jobs, in software development, information technology operations and information design held up better in the big eight tech hubs than elsewhere.

For job postings that cited a location, the share of tech job posts nationally in the eight big tech hubs increased minimally, from 37.46% in the year prior to the pandemic to 37.53% in the first full year of the pandemic. In Indeed reports from 2017 and 2019, the eight big tech hubs maintained or increased shares of U.S. tech jobs.

Tech jobs in tech hubs were less likely to mention remote work than tech jobs elsewhere: "In the eight big tech hubs, 16% of tech jobs mentioned remote work versus 18% of tech jobs in the two dozen smaller tech centers across the country, 19% in other big metros, and 22% in other smaller metros," the report found. This translates to non-remote tech job postings are now more concentrated in the eight big tech hubs than tech postings overall. And, the concentration of non-remote tech postings in those big hubs increased more during the pandemic than the concentration of tech postings overall did.

Indeed cites as a key finding that "tech jobs are at least as concentrated in tech hubs as before the pandemic, and more so when looking only at jobs where location matters enough that the posting doesn't mention remote work. The increase of remote work makes location less important for many tech jobs. But jobs for which location still matters are even more clustered in tech hubs."

The patterns, Indeed noted, indicate that tech firms that are not in a big tech hub benefit more from remote work than the big hub tech companies, but Indeed also reminded that the big tech hubs have access to a concentration of tech workers. Employers in big tech hubs might find remote work gives employees more flexibility, and ultimately "dramatically expands the recruiting pool for tech employers not located in the big hubs.

Non-tech job postings within the tech hubs--primarily local service jobs--suffered big declines. Retail job posts were down 16% year-over-year in tech hubs, but flat outside tech hubs. Positions in childcare and food-prep declined more in the tech hubs than elsewhere. Indeed's report noted: "These local service sectors got hit because tech hubs are full of people who can work remotely. Tech hubs have clusters of both tech jobs and related professional services jobs that can be done from home. With high shares of people working from home, local businesses like shops and restaurants have been getting less traffic. As a result, job postings and employment suffered."

Clearly, remote jobs increased dramatically during the pandemic and Indeed job postings in nearly all sectors were more likely to mention remote work. Tech postings mentioned remote work more than postings in other industries.

Within the eight big tech hubs, tech job postings fell the least in Baltimore and Austin and the most in Raleigh and Boston. Meanwhile, Seattle, San Jose and San Francisco, which all have high concentrations of big tech firms and desirable tech positions, were in the middle. Seattle and San Jose, where the biggest tech companies are headquartered mentioned the least amount of remote jobs.

The result of these findings demonstrates that tech geography patterns were not much affected by the pandemic. Tech jobs fell less in areas with concentrations of tech roles, and Indeed's data showed smaller declines in the eight major tech hubs than those outside of those cities.

If you can only read one tech story a day, this is it. Delivered Weekdays

Visit link:

Tech jobs in the 8 major big tech hubs showed resilience during the COVID-19 crisis - TechRepublic

Government apps are only available to people who are Google and Apple clients excluding those who wish to use or offer alternatives and therefore promoting unfair competition, experts have told the Financieele Dagblad.

Government online services, such as the tax office and social benefits agency UWV, can only be safely accessed by people who agree to the Google or Apple account terms and conditions.

Those who dont want to have to contend with a less safe environment or functionality or are left to deal with the services by mail, a number of government ministries confirmed to the paper.

The government is driving millions of citizens into the arms of the American tech giants, director of privacy watchdog Privacy First Vincent Bhre told the paper. Its absurd people are being forced to use Apple or Google. There must always be alternative means, he said.

There are, for instance, no alternatives for the impending corona passport app, leaving non-users with proof of vaccination on paper, a health ministry spokesman said.

Meanwhile Logius, the government company behind DigiD, the app with which to access a host of government services, is phasing out its less safe sms log-in system in favour of Apple and Google too, the FD found.

The fact that the government is opting for Google and Apple exclusively is surprising, seeing that the EU is trying to limit European dependence on American tech companies and is investing in European alternatives, the paper said. It has also fined the companies for abuse of power several times.

Standards

However, Logius told the FD the standards of safety of other providers are not good enough, while the ministries said that 99.2% of all smartphone users are either Google or Apple clients anyway.

But that attitude, critics said, is only perpetuating the problem. Other safe Google-free Android based alternatives are available, such as the international standard U2F which uses a USB stick for logging in.

Both Logius and the health ministry said they were looking into allowing safe alternatives to access their services. However, draft legislation to make this possible has stranded, because it did not comply with the senates demand for a completely public source code. It will take approximately a year before the proposal will become law.

But Bart Jacobs, professor of cyber safety at the Radboud University and involved with IRMA, an alternative to DidiD, said the delay is not a legal impediment for allowing more privacy friendly systems to operate.

The DutchNews.nl team would like to thank all the generous readers who have made a donation in recent weeks. Your financial support has helped us to expand our coverage of the coronavirus crisis into the evenings and weekends and make sure you are kept up to date with the latest developments.

DutchNews.nl has been free for 14 years, but without the financial backing of our readers, we would not be able to provide you with fair and accurate news and features about all things Dutch. Your contributions make this possible.

If you have not yet made a donation, but would like to, you can do so via Ideal, credit card or Paypal.

Continued here:

Government apps use Apple and Google, 'driving millions to US big tech': FD - DutchNews.nl - DutchNews.nl