Monthly Archives: April 2022

Thousands of local papers have shuttered their doors in recent years, and those surviving are facing unprecedented challenges in remaining both economically viable and as the lifeblood of their communities.

All the while, Big Tech monopolies like Alphabet and Meta through sites like Google News and Facebook News have come to dominate the news and publishing industries by expropriating the work of smaller and local operators via their news aggregator sites.

The Founding Fathers enshrined protections for a press free from government regulation in the First Amendment to the Constitution because a free and diverse press is the backbone of a healthy and vibrant republic. But the Founders could not have envisioned a future in which nearly all news and information would be controlled by just a handful of private entities.

People look up toward the U.S. Capitol Rotunda near a painting with some Founding Fathers depicted on March 28, 2022, in Washington. The Founding Fathers enshrined protections for a press free from government regulation in the First Amendment. (Jim Watson/Getty-AFP)

This is not only blatantly unfair it is a threat to the free press and, thus, to democracy itself.

The American people not only understand the severity of this threat, but moreover, are united on the need to curb Big Techs undue power and unjust profiteering in the news and publishing industries.

New polling by Schoen-Cooperman Research which was conducted among a representative sample of U.S. adults, and commissioned by News Media Alliance reveals widespread public concern over Big Techs outsize influence with respect to news and publishing, as well as broad-based support for Congress taking action to rein in these monopolies.

Indeed, roughly 4 in 5 Americans are concerned that Big Tech companies have too much power over the news and publishing industries (79%), manipulate these industries for their own gain (78%), and are driving small and local news outlets out of business (76%).

Further, approximately three-quarters agree that Big Techs monopoly over the news and publishing industries is a threat to the free press and unfair to publishers, especially to small and local outlets (76%).

In addition to being broadly concerned about this problem, Americans want change and are looking to their elected leaders in Washington to deliver.

Roughly 4 in 5 Americans agree with statements to this effect, including I support Congress taking steps to give small and local publishers more power in negotiations with Big Tech companies (81%), as well as Congress needs to rein in Big Tech by passing reforms that would make the publishing industry fairer for smaller media entities and local operators (77%).

In terms of specific reforms, our survey measured public support for a bill that was introduced this year known as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, or JCPA. This is a bipartisan proposal that would allow news publishers to negotiate, under the authority of a federal intermediary, fair terms for use of their content by Big Tech companies.

Remarkably, after reading a brief description of the JCPA, strong majorities support Congress passing the JCPA (70%) and believe it is important for Congress to pass the JCPA (64%).

Respondents also indicated that a political candidates support for the JCPA or lack thereof would affect their vote in an election. By a 4-to-1 margin, U.S. adults would be more likely, rather than less likely, to back a candidate for Congress who supported the JCPA.

Additionally, 7 in 10 agree that elected officials who oppose the JCPA are allowing Big Tech companies to continue manipulating the news and publishing industries for their own gain, leaving small and local publishers powerless (69%).

In addition to being supportive of the JCPA, the public broadly favors general reforms to this effect. Strong majorities support Congress passing laws that would allow news publishers to band together to collectively negotiate fairer terms for use of content by Big Tech (71%) and increase regulations on Big Tech to curb their power over the news and publishing industries (57%).

And by roughly a 3-to-1 margin, Americans would be more likely, rather than less likely, to back political candidates who support both reforms.

Over the last two decades, though the world of news and information has changed dramatically with the expansion of Big Tech, the United States antitrust and anti-monopoly laws have not changed with it.

Congress now has a mandate from the American public to rein in Big Tech and pursue long-overdue reforms that will safeguard local journalisms survival and ultimately will make the news industry fairer, freer and more democratic.

On a personal note, in my experience as a professional pollster who has worked in the industry for more than 40 years, it is rare for an issue or piece of legislation to garner this level of broad-based and enthusiastic public support.

Elected officials from both parties have a unique opportunity to deliver on reforms that are both substantively important and politically viable by advancing the JCPA or a similar version of the bill which our data indicates would have a demonstrably positive electoral impact for these members.

If America is to have a news industry that is truly free and fair, we must stop allowing Big Tech companies to expropriate the work of smaller and local publishers without consequence. Congress can start by passing legislation like the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act into law.

Douglas Schoen is a Democratic campaign consultant and author of several books including The Power of the Vote: Electing Presidents.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

See more here:

Douglas Schoen: Americans are united in wanting Congress to rein in Big Tech's power over news publishing - Chicago Tribune

Nastassia Samal/iStock via Getty Images

Ahead of quarterly results from industry heavyweights Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL) and Meta Platforms (FB), communication and telecom exchange traded funds touched 18-month trading lows on Monday. The group has seen significant selling so far this year, with the space representing the worst-performing market segment of the 11 S&P 500 sectors in 2022.

Falling to an 18-month trading low on Monday are the Vanguard Communication Services ETF (NYSEARCA:VOX), Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (NYSEARCA:XLC), Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (NYSEARCA:FCOM), and the iShares Global Telecom ETF (NYSEARCA:IXP).

VOX touched 105.80 a share, while XLC, FCOM, and IYZ dipped to 60.82, 40.09, and 27.71 a share, respectively. The four funds havent traded this low since early Nov. of 2020.

Big tech is on deck to report Q1 earnings this week, with headline names like Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL) and Meta Platforms (FB) set to report on Tuesday and Wednesday. Both GOOG and FB will have major implications on the beaten-down XLC, VOX, FCOM, and IXP. The two stocks represent between 34%-43% of the above four ETFs.

XLC has a combined 42.7% weighting: GOOG 22.82% & FB 19.88%.

FCOM has a combined 36.78% weighting: GOOG 23.25% & FB 13.53%.

VOX has a combined 36.31% weighting: GOOG 22.98% & FB 13.33%.

IXP has a combined 34.40% weighting: GOOG 22.45% & FB 11.95%.

See a complete schedule of big tech earnings this week along with all other exchange traded funds that may be affected by the reports.

Head-to-Head Comparison

While all four funds offer investors exposure to the communications/telecom sector, they do have many important differences. The differentiation comes in areas like assets under management, expense ratios, number of holdings and performances.

AUM: XLC leads the space with $10.64B under its belt, while VOX comes in second at $3.41B. FCOM and IXP are the smaller funds with $669.78M and $205.01M assets under management.

Cost: FCOM is the most cost-effective fund with an expense ratio of 0.08%. Not far off are XLC and VOX with 0.10% expense ratios. IXP on the other hand, is the priciest of the group with a 0.43% cost ratio.

Holdings: All four funds' top two holdings are GOOG and FB, but FCOM and VOX offer the broadest sector exposure with 114 holdings and 110 holdings. IXP is also diverse with 98 holdings compared to the heavily concentrated 28 holdings of XLC.

Performance: All four funds have provided roughly the same returns in 2022 of -21%, but over a three-year period XLC is +24.2%, VOX is +20.9%, FCOM is +19.8%, and IXP is +13.5%.

For greater insight into how these four funds have matched up against each other, see Seeking Alphas quantitative and fundamental analysis of each ETF.

The rest is here:

Communication ETFs fall to 18-month lows ahead of big tech earnings - Seeking Alpha

We've got Apple and Google and Twitter and Meta, on Boeing on Qualcom, on Intel and Visa! Santa would be exhausted by the time he got through calling out our S&P high-flyers and, so far, investors have been in a punishing mood using any hint of weakness as an excuse to dump their holdings.

All this is coming against a background of not IF but WHEN there will be a recession while war continues to rage in the Ukraine and Covid continues to rage around the World, Oh yes, and don't forget inflation, which is completely out of control with no end in sight that's bad too.

There's been a 50% rise in infections in the US this month and China is locked down but most of the rest of the World is just pretending it isn't happening. 1/4 (80M) of the US population has already gotten Covid and 1/3 of the population (110M) refuse to be vaccinated or take most precautions so there's essentially no way to get rid of this thing and the only question is how severe the next wave will be? It's not a political question it's an economical one. We've run out of stumulus, which causes more inflation that we're trying to fight now anyway so what are we going to do if we're hit with another wave of Covid?

With Q1 GDP coming out on Thursday, what we're really concerned with is whether or not the indexes can stay out of our 20% correction range, which makes 13,500 on the Nasdaq hyper-critical as we crashed below the 20% correction line there as well as 1,920 on the Russell, which is our only index where we prediced more than a 20% correction LAST YEAR, when we began using this chart:

So, very simply, if the Nasdaq turns green we have some hope but if the Russell turns red we need to add more hedges and consider cashing out completely. If these levels fail, you can't even imagine the carnage that lies below us. Look what a mess the S&P is already:

But, of course, if you look at it in perspective, this is only a minor correction at best:

Covid alone took us from 3,300 to 2,200 (33%) in early 2020 and now that's just one of the things we are worried about. From 4,800 a 33% correction would be about 3,200 the top of where we corrected from last time and, from a LONG-term perspective, that would be nice consoldation for the decade ahead and still better than the 60% correction we had in 2008/9, right?

Last Tuesday, in our morning PSW Report (which you can subscribe to here) I asked you if you would like to make a quick $10,000, saying:

S&P 500 Futures (/ES) pay $50 per point and we're below the 50-day moving average at 4,416 so that would be the stop line and 4,320 is the strong bounce line and, failing that, we have no support at all until the weak bounce line at 4,180 200 points below where we are this morning (4,385). If we call 4,400 the stop line then we risk losing $50 x 15 points = $750 against the potential gain of $10,000 if the S&P falls back to where we were a month ago.

We still have the war, we still have Covid, the Fed is still raising rates because we still have inflation am I missing something? In fact, speaking of the Fed, St Louis President, James Bullard just said this morning that his target rate for THIS YEAR is 3.5%, not 2.5%.

4,218 is where we bottomed out on Friday and that was good for gains of $9,100 and we're back to 4,238 this morning and I'd certainly keep a stop at 4,250 to lock in $7,500 of profits and, by the way you're welcome!Oil is down another 5% this morning at $97 and that's almost tempting to play for a bounce back to $100 on /CL but I'd rather play Natural Gas (/NG) over the $6.50 line with tight stops below as Putin might cut off gas to Europe and send prices well over $8. /NG futures pay (or take!) $100 per penny so even if you lose 0.05 that's $500 but, on the very bright side, $8 would be $15,000 in gains on a single contract so playing off a good support line is the way to go but TIGHT STOPS is the key to surviving.

Gold (/GC) will be attractive if it gets back over $1,900 (now $1,895) with tight stops below and the same goes for Silver (/SI) at $23.50. The Dollar is super-strong at 101.50 but hasn't properly tested 100 as it's gone over so I'm expecting a little pullback this week as it's up on all the hawkish Fed comments last week and that's not likely to get worse and other Central Banksters may start talking about raising their own rates and leveling the playing field with our Fed and that would calm the Dollar down as well.

That being said, let's take a look at our calendar for the week where there are NO Fed speakers scheduled (doesn't mean they won't say anything) as they too are probably waiting for earnings results from Big Tech before trying to steer the markets one way or another. We have the Chicago and Dallas Fed Reports this morning and Chicago already reported a March slowdown to 0.44 from 0.54 in February and that's down from 0.74 in January how's that for a trend?

Notice Personal Consumption and Housing went negative that's not good Notice the sharp decline in Employment from last month. The last time we had that was August and these are early indictators but we had a decline in September, as the S&P fell from 4,550 to 4,275 (6%). We're already down 7.5% from our March highs but I'm still expecting to see our -10% range at 4,180 before we're done (if we're even done there at all).

Our primary reason for not going to CASH!!! so far is we think the Government has another round of stimulus left to throw at us. It's hard to imagine they want to roll the dice on another 10-20% drop in the market from here coming into the election cycle but you never know so far, the Republicans have held up each vote on more stimulus as they feel the public is blaming their economic problems on Biden and the Democrats which is like blaming the firemen for the fire they came to put out but what can you do?

What we could do was improve our hedges in our Short-Term Portfolio, which is what we did on Wednesday last week BEFORE the market started dropping

It's going to be a crazy week, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

Read the original post:

Just Another Manic Monday Big Tech Weak? - TheStreet

Recent moves by U.S. technology giants Meta, Googleand Amazon to significantly beef up their presence and staffing levels in Canada have cemented the country's status as a growing hub for technology talent.

While Canada's tech boom may be welcome news for those who dream of working forthese tech giants, it comes at a cost for local startups, whichsuddenly have to compete with foreign Goliaths for the country's best and brightest.

"The more companies are being created and built, the more pressure there is," saidJeremy Shaki, co-founder of Lighthouse Labs, a Toronto-based technology education company that offers coding boot camps and other services for people looking to level up their careers.

Shaki says it's no secret why large foreign techfirms are eager to set up shop in Canada;beyond the access to new customers, Canadian universities are cranking out skilled workers at a rapid clipand they often come at a fraction of what they would cost in places like Silicon Valley.

In late March, Meta (formerly known as Facebook) announced plans to hire up to 2,500 people in Toronto and in other parts of Canada, while Google says it's lookingto triple its workforce here. Amazon wants to hire for some 600 tech jobs.

But in pure financial terms, these companieshave the resources to outbid everyone else when it comes to securing the right person, and that can make things difficult for local firms trying to compete.

Ron Spreeuwenberg faces that challenge every day. He's the CEO of HiMama, a software company founded in Toronto in 2013. HiMama makes software solutions for the child-care industryand employsroughly 180 people, more than half of whom have been hired in the past two years.

Now boasting 10,000 customers, the company has expanded its hiring pool well beyond their home base of Toronto, with staff across Canada and the U.S.

Canada's days of being little more than a source of cheap coders are over, saysSpreeuwenberg.

"I think we had a period of time where we were lucky, where we could find really greatquality talent at lower compensation rates," he said in an interview. "But people have found out about us and it made it challenging."

WATCH| How small startups compete with the big guns:

The biggest thing Spreeuwenbergsays hehears time and again from new hires is that they wantthe opportunity to grow and develop their skills. "The No. 1 reason why people choose a company or a role is what the company does and the opportunity for them, in terms of learning and development,and the challenge," he said.

That said, he acknowledges money helps. "We know we're competing against companies who certainly can afford a lot more than us when it comes to compensation."

Spreeuwenberg says a major selling feature forrecruiting would-be hires to HiMama from outside Canada is the country itself, as is the opportunity to work toward the company's goal of improvingchildhood development.

"Those are very important for us and things that a lot of our employees care deeply about," he said.

That desire to do good work and help solve problemsis a major theme at another Canadian startup, Mysa, based in St. John's. Founded as a Kickstarter project in 2016, the smart thermostat company has grown from just twoemployees at launch to more than 100 across Canada today, serving more than 150,000 customers.

Just as Shopify is synonymous withOttawa, and BlackBerry is toWaterloo, the 800-poundgorilla of the technology sector on the East Coastis Verafin, a St. John's-based cybersecurity firm that made headlines last year when it was bought by Nasdaqfor nearly $3 billion.

While not a household name in the rest of Canada, Verafin's successes have shone a light on the region's booming technology sector, said Mysa co-founder Joshua Green.

That means he, too, is dealing with the same compensation conundrum other startups face: It's hard to compete with deep-pocketed big tech.

But just as HiMama appeals to people looking to live in Toronto, he's able to make a similar pitch.

"That quality of living, of being able to work for a technology company while also living in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador, is appealing tonot everyone, but a growing number of people," Green said.

"And the No. 1 reason why I think people want to join our mission and the purpose of why we exist as a company is to fight climate change."

The HiMamas and Mysas of the world aren't just attracting the attention of tech giants likeGoogle, Meta and Microsoft when it comes to hiring;they're also attracting U.S. investment dollars.

HiMama recently secured $70 million in funding from Boston-based private equity firm Bain Capitala sign of just how on the radar Canada's tech ecosystem has become.

"There's a lot of interest from investors outside of Canadain Canadian companies because of the talent andthe quality of the startups," saidCraig Leonard, a partner with venture capital fund Graphite Ventures.

"But also,they are relatively less expensive at times than some of the companies who would be built in, in some of the other ecosystems,[like] say, in the United States."

According to a recent report from commercial real estate firm CBRE, Toronto is the third-largest technology hub in North America. Ottawa and Vancouver also rank in the top dozen, well ahead of places like Austin, Texas, Portland, Ore., and Chicago.

Though it may be hard to believe, there are more tech workers in Toronto than there are in Seattle, which is home to Amazon and Microsoft.

Not that long ago, lower salaries would have been a major selling point for a U.S. tech company looking to establish a beachhead in Canada.But the pandemic changed things some, as theshift toward virtual offices allowed Canadian companies to attract talent from around the world.

"It also levelled up the salariesand the opportunity for Canadian talent to go and work for other companies," said Leonard.

WATCH | Tech at its bestis a 'flywheel' of talent, this investor says:

For Dr. Alexandra Greenhill, the CEO of Vancouver-based health-care-focused artificial intelligence firmCareteam Technologies Inc., a little healthy competition is good for everyone, making companiesof all sizes better, while also spurring on the next generation of startups.

"If we do this right,it could be a very positive thing for the country," she said in an interview. "Butif we don't do thisright, it can be a disaster."

Greenhillsaid she recently lost a handful of great people toAmazon,after it set up shopin her backyard of Vancouverand were "offering two to three times the salary that I offer my engineers."

While she doesn't begrudge anyone for leaving, she'd like to see largerivals invest a little more in training less experienced workers, as opposed to simply hoovering up a local talent pool that's been painstakingly created over time.

"We can give them all kinds of perks and interesting things to do and whatnot, but the pure dollars are just completely out of our league and drive all the prices up," she said.

Though Greenhill admits it's a constant struggle, she's optimistic about Canada's tech future, because she can see what's possible when the right environment is created one that encourages foreign companies to come in and participate in the ecosystem, rather thanjust take from it.

She's on the board ofCanada's Digital Technology Supercluster, a government-led initiative seeking to fast track Canada's status as a digital hub. Greenhill saystheinitiative combinesthe carrot of government cash to fund tech projects,with the stick that strings come attached to that money.

Specifically, foreign tech giants wishing to participatehave to invest themselves and set up roots, too.

"They have a role to play in making the ecosystem a better, stronger place," she said.

With the backing of government, the supercluster initiative plays something of a convener role, Greenhill said, holdingbig tech "accountable for their commitments and inviting them to behave like good corporate citizens."

And instead of seeing big tech as an adversary, they can help to cross-pollinate the whole ecosystem."They set up accelerators, they become mentors, they create joint projects with the local companies," she said.

To the investment community, dollars and cents will always be top of mind, but Graphite's Leonard says the best outcome for Canada's tech sector is one where there's a lot of collaboration and competition.

"If you get that consistent investment it creates a flywheel effect of anchor companies that then develop that talent," he said. "They start companies, those companies exit, that talent goes back into the pool, as well as investment dollars."

Without that collaboration and long-term commitment, there will be no rising tide to raise all boats.

"If we don't do anything, you can end up being a country that just exports talent," Greenhill said.

More here:

Big Tech hiring cements Canada's status as Silicon Valley North but there's a catch - CBC News

Over the past few years, the European Union has taken an aggressive posture on tech regulation, targeting large U.S. tech firms and showing little regard for the global implications of their approach. Now, Congress is working on its own framework for regulating the tech industry. This week, former national security, defense, and intelligence leaders sent an open letter to Congress urging lawmakers to consider the global security implications of current tech legislation pending on Capitol Hill.

The lettersigned by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, among othersfocused on the battle brewing between authoritarianism and democracy. The open letter reads in part:

We call on the congressional committees with national security jurisdiction to conduct a review of any legislation that could hinder Americas key technology companies in the fight against cyber and national security risks emanating from Russias and Chinas growing digital authoritarianism It is imperative that the United States avoid the pitfalls of its key allies and partners, such as the European Union (EU).

In recent years, the threat of digital authoritarianism and the cyber capabilities of U.S. adversaries have grown significantly. Authoritarian regimes like Russia and China are increasingly turning to digital tools as a means to repress their own populations, gain influence abroad, and challenge their international competitors. Russian cyberattacks and digital disinformation campaigns against Ukraine are only the latest examples.

In this new world of digital warfare, the United States has an obligation to protect the nation from cyberattacks and counter digital authoritarianism wherever possible. A 2020 report from the Democratic staff for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on China and digital authoritarianism crystalized this responsibility. As the premier digital innovator on the globe, the United States is the primary entity capable of shaping the future of the digital environment. The report continues on to warn that if the United States continues to cede its traditional role of diplomatic and technological leadership, the global growth of Chinas digital authoritarianism model presents a sinister future for the digital domain.

The former national security leaders letter correctly notes that the tech industry is one of the nations biggest advantages in the global digital conflict. While prominent tech companies have a mixed track record of working with authoritarian regimes and enabling digital authoritarianism, the tech industry, by and large, has advanced liberal, democratic values abroad. In Ukraine, for example, American social media platforms have played an important role even after being banned in Russia. Perhaps more significantly, Starlink has reportedly promised to send thousands of satellite internet receivers to Ukraine in an effort to keep the country online. But this can cut the other way. For instance, late last year, several U.S. tech companies acceded to Kremlin pressure to ban Putin opponent Alexei Navalnys voting app from their app stores. Similarly, Apple has blocked numerous apps from its app store in China, including privacy tools like VPNs and even the Voice of America mobile app.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of a techlash in the United States and Europe. Trust in the tech industry is at an all-time low with many consumers justifiably concerned about privacy, bias, and security. The current techlash has spurred American lawmakers to introduce legislation aimed at addressing the perceived ills of Big Tech.

However, the U.S. federal government has been more of a follower than a leader when it comes to tech regulationand now even states like California are stepping in to set rules with global implications. On the global stage, the European Union has taken the lead in shaping tech governance, first with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016 and now with the forthcoming Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Service Act (DSA). The GDPR is a far-reaching regulation that governs how online data processors must handle data privacy and securityamong other things, its responsible for those annoying cookie notifications. The DMA is essentially antitrust legislation that bans certain practices by large tech firms, while the DSA establishes new rules for digital services around advertising and content moderation.

Since the United States has so far been slow to establish laws and regulations for digital platform governance, European laws and regulations have spillover effects into American markets. In a phenomenon known as the Brussels Effect, strict regulations in the EU tend to have an extraterritorial impact. While the GDPR is not enforceable in the United States, many American companies have implemented features stipulated in the GDPR for non-EU users. Since compliance costs for the GDPR and penalties for violations are high, many companies have taken a better safe than sorry approach and simply applied the GDPR to all users. The same will happen with the DMA and DSA.

Many contend that the DMA and DSA unfairly (and deliberately) target the U.S. tech industry. In a joint statement, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) said of the DMA and DSA that: these discriminatory policies will distort trade by disadvantaging U.S. companies and their workers, protecting domestic European firms, and even giving an unfair advantage to government-owned and subsidized companies based in China and Russia that do not reflect shared U.S.-E.U. values of democracy, human rights and market-based principles.

In response to these concerns, the Biden administration has reportedly been in discussions about the DMA and DSA with the Transatlantic Trade and Technology Council. But its not clear that legislation being considered before Congress would seriously address this. Rather, many of its proposals seem to buy into the protectionist European theory of singling out large U.S. firms. In the fight against digital authoritarianism and the global race for tech dominance, it would be irrational for the United States to buy into the assumptions and attitudes of the EUs historically anti-American approach.

Its time for the United States to wake up to the global challenges ahead, and the rivalry between liberal Western values and growing illiberal threats. If this is to succeed, Congress and the administration must work to change the narrative, and work to create sector-wide legal and regulatory frameworks for tech that can be a global model to promote democratic values, as well as robust global competition, economic growth, and innovation.

Luke Hogg is Policy Manager at Lincoln Network, focusing on the intersection of technological innovation and public policy.

Image: Reuters.

Read the rest here:

In the Battle Against Illiberalism, Don't Take Big Tech for Granted - The National Interest Online

Those old enough still remember when sin entered the internet. We have been trying to return to grace ever since.

When Elon Musk announced on 14 April that he is planning to acquire Twitter and turn it into a privately owned company, the message was that he wants to go back to those prelapsarian times when the internet was supposed to make us better. What has happened since then? The large platforms Google, Facebook, Twitter and others are no longer neutral arbiters between different world-views but impose their own values. Algorithms are used surreptitiously to manipulate public opinion and create echo chambers. Advertising corrupts thought and expression for the sake of maximum engagement. Twitter is particularly dismal, seemingly designed to promote shallow discussions and a rabid inquisitorial spirit.

Musk claims that the internet has lost its way and promises to return Twitter to a lost age when everyone could freely share ideas and access information. He is right about one thing. The internet has changed. The disagreement is over what went wrong and what to try next.

There have been two internets so far, and some believe a third is on the way. Web1 was decentralised, founded on open protocols operating rules for the network like the ones still used for email or websites. Web2 was the internet built by platforms such as Facebook or Google, the companies owning the data on which our economies now depend. Web3 is the internet emerging on decentralised blockchains, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, which no one owns or controls. For its proponents the term was introduced by Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood Web3 combines the best of both worlds: the decentralisation of Web1 and the immersion and interaction of Web2.

[See also: The spirit of the age: Why the tech billionaires want to leave humanity behind]

How we got from Web1 to Web2 is a complicated story, but it ultimately amounts to a failure of imagination. The creators of the open protocols of the early internet had no idea of what it would become. They still thought the internet would be a kind of entertainment medium similar to television or newspapers. They could not guess its final form: the metaverse, a wholesale replacement for the real world.

As the internet grew, it was left to the private sector to provide the missing parts. In a virtual world, everyone needs an identity or avatar. Facebook provided them for us. Money from the real world had to be replaced with something else, so advertising filled the gap. We pay with our attention. Suddenly we were all living on the internet, but Facebook owned the data defining our identities, and the world where our lives took place was powered by targeted advertising: the springs of community life now had to serve the purpose of maximising profits for Facebook and its advertisers.

More remarkably, we now accept that these platforms have the power to delete our virtual selves if we violate what they regard as acceptable behaviour. A power of life and death in the virtual world, but how virtual is it?

As for Web3, the project is just beginning, but its intent is clear: to replace the feudal rule of the platforms with something approaching a democratic order. Everything will have to be owned by everyone, starting with their digital identities, as opposed to identities being owned by platforms and then sold to advertisers without our consent. Instead of private databases, the decentralised blockchain with no single point of control. Instead of decisions by company boards, governance models that allow all community members to vote.

[See also: Peter Thiel: Big Techs dark prophet]

Is this a case of the first time as tragedy, the second as farce, as Karl Marx put it? Perhaps not, but it does seem that we will have to relive online the same real-world historical events that took us from feudalism to modern democracy. There will be civil wars and revolutions, liberators and Bonapartes, charters of rights and heroes sacrificing their lives for the greater good. Instead of lawyers, the main characters will be computer programmers. Hegel might become the name of a cryptocurrency. But the process will often feel like a virtual re-enactment of modern European history.

The creators of the original internet thought it was no more than a product in the capitalist economy. When Musk argues that he will be able to provide a much better Twitter experience, I see the same fundamental error. The internet is no longer a product, if it ever was a product. David Bowie once called it an alien life form. It is certainly an alien planet, a new reality to which we are migrating and where the structures of the old world will have to be recreated and reinvented. Who is in charge? Who decides? Who owns the memes of production? How can the people be sovereign? Those questions took on an urgent character the moment the internet became what the historian-philosopher Justin EH Smith calls in his new book, The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is, a filter, and a portal for the conduct of nearly every kind of human life today.

One of the most disturbing elements of the current Twitter saga is how Musk has mustered a phalanx of fans ready to defend him. What they clamour for is a better product. They plausibly believe the creator of Tesla is the right person to provide it. They see themselves as consumers rather than citizens, the internet equivalent of the medieval masses asking for bread rather than freedom.

[See also: Why the billionaire space race is the colonial fantasy reborn]

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

This article appears in the 20 Apr 2022 issue of the New Statesman, Law and Disorder

Read the original:

Will the internet's third iteration free our virtual selves from Big Tech's control? - The New Statesman

DUBLIN, April 22, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --The "Global Digital Health Outlook 2022" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

Digital health offered extensive support and grew stronger as the pandemic continued with several variants across the globe. Telehealth and other enterprise IT solutions continued to be the backbone for healthcare systems, and access to health in the hands of the patients empowered consumers to manage their health with the best of tools.

As the demand for digital health soars globally combined with healthcare consumerism, stakeholders and consumers started demanding end-to-end solutions delivered via platforms. Innovation, usage of advanced analytics and AI, and most importantly, interoperability will be key in 2022 and beyond.

AI will find clear and strong applications in healthcare for designing digital front door strategies, workflow orchestration, virtual care, clinical pathway designing, and eventually achieving better healthcare outcomes at lower costs.

In addition, it will help ensure patient engagement and avoid staff burnout. This outlook, as every year, lays out strong trends that will share the digital health market landscape and gives predictions while highlighting growth opportunities.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Strategic Imperatives

2. Analysis Highlights

3. Growth Environment

4. Macroeconomic Factors

5. Revenue Trends 2021

6. Top 5 Predictions, 2022

7. Segment Outlook, Healthcare IT

8. Segment Outlook, Telehealth

9. Growth Opportunity Universe

10. Conclusions

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/h4fjjt

Media Contact:

Research and MarketsLaura Wood, Senior Manager[emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1904Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

Continued here:

Global Digital Health Market Outlook 2022 - Big Tech Using On-demand Services in Primary Care to Strengthen its Hold in Healthcare - PR Newswire