Daily Archives: May 28, 2022

And, through a previously little-publicized program, Google is carefully expanding its soft power by building relationships with progressives of color.

Documents seen by Protocol reveal that Google has spent years fostering its Next Gen Learning Community, a network of people of color who are interested in tech policy. Several of the participants have influential perches in politics or culture even as Google flies them to its campuses, seeks to impress upon them its view of issues like Section 230 reform and watches them connect with some of the very same lawmakers who have turned up the heat on Google.

Next Gen participants who spoke with Protocol portrayed the program as a vital link between people of color, who are underrepresented in tech policy, and said it provides a forum to bring criticisms to the tech giant. But the program also echoes one of Googles most potent and under-discussed Washington tactics: its long history of winning friends in the tech policy community even when its not trying to influence people. Part of that effort is burnishing its image in the eyes of sometime-opponents without demanding they become supporters but also without always addressing their concerns quickly.

The Next Gen program appears to go back to 2016, when it was created by top Google staffer Chanelle Hardy. According to her LinkedIn profile, Hardy had previously held prominent positions at the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission, in congressional offices and with major consumer and civil rights groups. That likely made her a natural fit to oversee policy partnerships for the company when she joined it that year.

In an invitation to an event hosted by the program in 2021, she wrote that the program was designed to inform Next Gens about key topics in tech policy and racial justice. Hardy also laid out Section 230, content moderation, intellectual property policy and the future of work as key focus areas. The invitation and a list of participants was shared exclusively with Protocol by the Tech Transparency Project, an ethics watchdog that has done extensive research into Big Techs influence networks, including Next Gen.

TTPs research reveals that, despite the emphasis by participants on the programs networking opportunities, Google kept close tabs on the growing voice of Next Gen participants in the policy conversation. For instance, one presentation, which was publicized by someone who did branding work for Google, noted extensive meetings with policymakers by Next Gen participants, appearances on panel discussions that focused on tech issues and more.

Members of Congress clearly addressed the group on certain occasions, but Google was adamant that the presentation, which cited more than 350 meetings with congressional offices and policymakers, included incorrect placeholder figures. The company also said the pamphlet detailed outreach that Next Gen participants did as part of their own work rather than at the urging of Google.

We do not ask Next Gen participants to take policy positions, nor do we provide them with advocacy materials, Google spokesperson Jos Castaeda said. We welcome discussion, debate and disagreement and in no way influence their advocacy efforts.

The company did not dispute the presentations assertion that Next Gen members met with Democratic Reps. Karen Bass, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu and Sheila Jackson Lee with an emphasis on the work of creatives of color, promoting diverse voices, and helping communities of color navigate the future of work. According to the presentation, those meetings happened in 2020 ahead of Google CEO Sundar Pichais testimony to a House panel investigating Big Techs competitive practices. Tweets also show Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Tony Crdenas addressed the group in 2019.

Castaeda said Google is proud of the program, which facilitates meetings with experts from civil society and the tech industry to engage on a range of policy topics.

Spokespeople for Bass, Lieu and Jackson Lee did not respond to questions about the meetings. A spokesperson for Jayapal, Siham Zniber, said her office was not aware of these meetings/conversations. Jayapal, the only lawmaker among the four who actually serves on the panel interviewing Pichai, asked pointed questions of him during the marathon session. Lieu and Bass serve on a committee focused on intellectual property.

Meetings of the group, which is free to join, occur about two or four times a year, according to participants. In addition to hot-button tech topics such as Section 230, intellectual property and antitrust, discussions have included mass incarceration, privacy, disinformation, immigration and more.

Before COVID-19, Google footed the bill for travel often to Washington, D.C., but also to other Google campuses. The group has met with company officials, and Next Gen also appears to have made it possible for participants to attend other conferences, summits and receptions in the capital.

Multiple participants said networking was the greatest benefit of Next Gen, emphasizing that participants talk to each other even outside of Googles purview. They also lamented how few other spaces theyd found to work with other people of color who are interested in advancing racial justice through tech.

According to materials obtained by TTP, the program has attracted some top-tier names, not just from government and politics but also from academia, civil rights, advocacy, media, philanthropy, think tanks and the arts. Alencia Johnson a former senior adviser to Joe Bidens presidential campaign who had previously served in top roles for Sen. Elizabeth Warrens White House bid, Planned Parenthood and President Obamas reelection is a participant. So are Alisa Valentin, a special adviser to FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, and April Reign, the creator of the #OscarsSoWhite campaign.

Its a great sharing that I think we need more of and we need more of creating routes for people of color to have influence over this sort of policymaking, said participant Chris Lewis, president of tech policy non-profit Public Knowledge, adding that through Next Gen he had been able to speak with entrepreneurs and artists who he wasnt naturally coming into contact with.

Big companies have a long history of courting influential outside voices like Lewis, a former FCC staffer and aide to Sen. Ted Kennedy, sometimes through commitments to important causes like diversity, equity and inclusion.

Among many in Washington, Google is seen as having a sophisticated network of ties, in part because the company seems to believe it benefits from supporting academics and activists even when its not demanding any chorus of support in return.

What theyre doing, frankly, is going out and making friends, said Steve Billet, a former lobbyist at AT&T who is now a professor at Notre Dame. He added he had no doubt that the program could help improve Googles standing among the participants and even potentially mute criticism.

Billet said a policy operation shouldnt merely revolve around lobbying spending, campaign contributions and meetings with government officials: It should also account for how companies maintain ties with all sorts of groups.

This is something that smart corporations have always done, he said. They at least put themselves in a place where theyre able to discuss and sit down at the table with organizations that are active in their area, [that] may be adversaries on some issues.

Google, for instance, has been diligent about funding the work of economists and legal academics going back years, even before its latest antitrust woes, according to other reports from TTP. Many of those same scholars insisted that the money didnt influence their subsequent defenses of the company or tech generally, but in the case of the economists, they were not always forthright about their ties, according to the Wall Street Journal. Google also seemed to focus money and attention on those who might be most ideologically disposed to support the companys pushback to competition concerns.

In addition, in 2017, Eric Schmidt, who was then Alphabets executive chairman, pressured the head of a liberal think tank over one units anti-Big Tech statements, according to a New York Times report. Schmidt had also previously funded and served as chairman of the group, and Google funded it. The offending scholar, competition expert Barry Lynn, blamed those financial relationships for his eventual dismissal.

Overall, the company publicly supports an extensive list of organizations in the policy conversation from think tanks on the left and right to trade associations and local chambers of commerce and has a pattern of doing so even when some of them are genuine thorns in the companys side on certain issues.

Public Knowledge and Lewis in some ways epitomize the relationship between Google and those it keeps in the fold. The group has hammered Google extensively over its competitive practices and been a key force behind the push for antitrust legislation that could fundamentally remake the companys business. Google and Public Knowledge are fighting each other tooth and nail on the issue. But because the group often aligns with the company on Section 230 and intellectual property issues, it also seems to demonstrate the companys willingness to make alliances when it can.

Were clear, and Im very clear with our donors, that they have no say in our positions, Lewis said. He added hes clear internally and to Google that he wouldnt even participate in Next Gen if he felt he did not have an independent voice.

Google did seem to want to ensure Next Gen participants made use of their voices, especially in opinion pieces. A tweet from a participant, for instance, showed a Next Gen session that taught op-ed writing, and the Next Gen presentation that described lawmaker meetings also touted that participants were producing op-eds, academic papers, blog posts, media appearances and social media posts on tech policy.

Nor is the company shy about making its positions clear during sessions, participants said, including on issues like Section 230 or competition, which represent some of the companys biggest policy vulnerabilities and in which Google has significant financial stake in the status quo.

Participants who spoke with Protocol insisted they hadnt felt pressure to take up Googles views and said theyd witnessed serious debates and sometimes-pointed criticism of the company itself. Some participants made clear that, far from being a form of corporate indoctrination, Next Gen allows Google to hear directly from outspoken critics, including on topics of participants choosing, whether the companys handling of election integrity or antitrust.

Weve been invited to be open and honest and critical as appropriate, said participant Yosef Getachew, who is the media and democracy program director at Common Cause. He pointed out hes called out the company publicly on election disinformation. Ive directly reached out to Google employees in the past to speak to them directly on the issues that [Common Cause is] working on and push them to do more.

Theres little doubt that the concerns from communities of color about Google have grown over the years. Its faced criticism that its been slow to combat election-related misinformation, especially on YouTube, and such misinformation has sometimes been aimed at Black and Latinx voters in particular. The mining of personal data at the heart of Googles digital ads may also allow ads for opportunities to be targeted in discriminatory ways (some of which Google now forbids). And the companys commitment to diversity and unbiased algorithmic research took a hit in 2020 after it fired prominent AI researcher Timnit Gebru.

Though Next Gen participants are not part of any explicit lobbying operation, they admit Google hasnt necessarily been swift to address their concerns, and readily concede that Google is a self-interested company whose Washington work cant possibly be entirely altruistic.

Getachew in particular said the advantage of Next Gen for Google may lie more in getting a word in on policy than in stepping up on diversity and inclusion.

I can imagine them saying, Well, were hosting this convening, this program, that features people of color as their part of doing something, he said. In my opinion, is that enough? Obviously not. Theres a lot more that Google can do to be equitable both from a policy and practical standpoint.

Go here to see the original:

Tech company layoffs and hiring freezes in 2022 - Protocol

Some state privacy laws use wording written by tech companies and their lobbyists, says a new report today. A formerly Apple-backed lobbying group has previously been cited as pushing for weaker privacy protection based on this wording.

Tech giants are aiming to push through weak privacy legislation in order to fend off more meaningful requirements, with one state senator admitting that the text of a privacy bill he put forward was supplied by a tech lobbyist

Surveys show that both citizens and tech giants alike favour a single federal privacy law along the lines of Europes GDPR. Citizens because it would ensure that everyone benefits from the same rights. Tech giants because its very much easier to comply with one law than 50 different ones.

However, Congress is divided on the issue of how far such legislation should go, with efforts currently stalled. The result is that individual states are passing their own laws, of varying strength.

California led the waywith a strong privacy law along the lines of EuropesGDPR. However, legislation drafted by other states has varied in its effectiveness.

Tech lobbying group State Privacy and Security Coalition (SPSC) whose members included Apple until it dropped out last month is promotingweak wording to multiple states.

TNW reports that one state senator unashamedly put forward legislation suggested by a tech lobbyist.

In late 2019, Utah state senator Kirk Cullimore got a phone call from one of his constituents, a lawyer who represented technology companies in California.

He said, I want to make this easy so consumers can make use of their rights and the compliance is also easy for companies. He actually sent me some suggested language [for a bill] that was not very complex, Cullimore told The Markup. I introduced the bill as that.

Indeed, even when Cullimore proposed some alternative language after push-back, he worked with the SPSC to redraft it.

When Cullimore introduced substitute language to his bill during a Februaryhearing, he did so with the help of Anton van Seventer, a lobbyist for the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

Tech giants have created a variety of neutral-sounding lobbying groups to promote the weak legislation put forward in Utah.

Not just in Utah, but in Virginia and Washington, and Minnesota, tech companies have provided draft language that led to the introduction of industry-friendly privacy bills, according to legislators The Markup interviewed and previous reporting by Protocol.

Big Tech funded nonprofits like TechNet, the State Privacy and Security Coalition, and the Internet Association have traveled from state to state encouraging legislators to mirror those industry-authored bills. TechNet representatives, for example, have testified or supplied written comments on privacy bills in at least 10 states since 2021, more than any other organization, according to our analysis of state legislative records.

And lobbyists have come in droves: We counted 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms that actively represented Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TechNet, and the State Privacy and Security Coalition in the 31 states we examined, during the time those states legislatures were considering privacy legislation. Many of them registered as lobbyists for the first time in the weeks immediately before or after a privacy bill was introduced

Some have accused Apple of hypocrisy, by simultaneously pushing privacy as a marketing tool while also supporting a group lobbying for very weak privacy legislation.

Updated to reflect that Apple left the SPSC last month.

Photo:Thomas Lefebvre/Unsplash

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Read the original post:

State privacy laws are being written by tech companies to minimize protections - 9to5Mac

"Despite having some of the most popular apps in the world, Metas ability to innovate on its products and services and even reach its customers is determined, and in some cases, significantly limited, by the most popular mobile operating systems, such as Apples iOS," the filing reads.

Meta submitted the comment as part of an ongoing study the NTIA is conducting for the U.S. Department of Commerce's White House Competition Council, which the Biden Administration established last year as part of an executive order to study market competition across various sectors of the U.S. economy.

Apple responded to the filing with a statement:

Privacy has always been at the center of what we believe. At Apple, we believe that a users data belongs to them and they should get to decide whether to share their data and with whom. App Tracking Transparency gives users the choice whether or not they want to allow apps to track them by linking their information with data from third parties for the purpose of advertising, or sharing their information with data brokers. These rules apply equally to all developers including Apple and we have received strong support from regulators and privacy advocates for this feature.

Meta's filing focuses on three areas: web browsing, as it relates to Apple's restrictions on what web apps can do versus native iOS software; gaming and the restrictions Apple imposes on developers who try to bundle HTML5 and cloud-based games within existing apps (like the Facebook app); and Apple's App Tracking Transparency initiative, the privacy feature the company rolled out last year that Meta has said will cost it about $10 billion in advertising revenue this year.

"Taken together, Apples restrictions on third-party web browsers, its restrictions on third-party gaming apps, and its ATT framework severely limit developers ability to create and consumers ability to enjoy cross-platform apps that could lower barriers to switching from Apple to Android and other devices," the filing goes on to say. "Apples self-serving tactics prevent consumers from realizing the innovation and benefits of a dynamic and otherwise well-functioning mobile app ecosystem."

Meta's feud with Apple over app store restrictions is not a new one by any means, but it has intensified in the last few years as Meta has increased its investments in the gaming sector. The social networking giant tried in 2020 to publish a dedicated Facebook Gaming app on Apple's App Store that would feature livestreaming, similar to Amazon's Twitch, alongside mobile games that could be played instantly with no download required, either using HTML5 technology or via streaming from the cloud.

Apple rejected the app repeatedly due to a series of cloud gaming restrictions the iPhone maker was forced to update for clarity. Still, many of the restrictions remained following the update, resulting in a high-profile back-and-forth between the two companies that has only grown more bitter as Apple has targeted Meta with iOS privacy changes and Tim Cook has taken public shots at Mark Zuckerberg and his company's business model.

Meta ultimately removed the gaming components from the Facebook Gaming app to publish it on the App Store. It later resorted to asking users to try a web version that skirts Apple's restrictions; Apple says web apps for cloud gaming and similar features are allowed on the iPhone, but it has strict rules around including those same features inside apps unless the app is dedicated to something else. (That's why, for instance, you can play HTML5 mini-games inside the main Facebook app because by Apple's logic, it is primarily a social networking platform and not a gaming one.)

Meta cites switching costs and ecosystem lock-in as reasons why it cannot simply rely on to Google's Android, which has fewer restrictions regarding what apps can and cannot do with regards to gaming. Restrictions that Apple imposes on cross-platform gaming, web-based, and ad-supported apps prevent them from lowering barriers to switching and lock consumers into iOS devices," the filing says. Apples policies restricting cloud games and HTML5-based games have prevented Meta from introducing features that would enable developers to distribute and monetize, and users of iOS devices to enjoy, a variety of games. These limitations have curbed Facebook Gamings growth and prevented it from emerging as a robust competitor to Apple in game discovery and distribution.

Meta's filing does not mention Epic Games, the Fortnite creator that sued Apple and Google in 2020 over many of these same restrictions. The comment does however make many of the same arguments as Epic did in those cases. Epic's suit against Apple is currently tied up in appeals, and the similar Google suit has yet to get a court date.

"Apples restrictions serve to maintain the App Store as the primary place for users to discover and access games on iOS devices," the filing concludes. "They also have the effect of maintaining high barriers to switching to an Android device, because users game data will often be stored in native iOS game apps and cannot be easily transferred outside of the Apple ecosystem, whereas Instant Games and cloud gaming services would allow for a seamless transition between iOS and Android devices."

Update 5/26, 2:08PM ET: Added statement from Apple.

View post:

Microsoft is the latest tech giant to slow hiring - Protocol

Though leftists frequently claim that it isnt happening, conservatives are acutely aware of the frequency and scope of Big Tech censorship.

People who dare to post something online that goes against leftist dogma routinely find themselves booted from the internet, victims ofthe intolerant gaggle of digital censors.

It doesnt always happen immediately. Last month, for example, YouTube suddenly removed a video of an interview featuringHeritage Foundationelections expert Hans von Spakovsky that had been posted over a year ago.

The interview, recorded at CPAC 2021 for The Jacob Kersey Program podcast, covered various election integrity issues and how to restore trust in the voting system by passing commonsense election security measures.

>>>Combating Big Techs Totalitarianism: A Road Map

On the show,Mr. von Spakovsky cited severalexamples of where voter fraud had thrown election results in question, prompting judges to throw out the results and order new elections. These were largely local elections. At no point did Mr. von Spakovsky imply that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Still, YouTube removed the video, claiming it violated the platforms rules surrounding misinformation andthe 2020 presidential election. Why this suddenly became an issue more than a year after the video was uploaded is anyones guess.

Ultimately, there was a happy ending. After The Daily Signal reported the story, YouTube quietly put the video back up, without acknowledging why it took it down in the first place.

That wasnt the first time YouTube censored someone for discussing the 2020 election, even if they arent claiming the election was stolen.

On March 14, I did an interview on election integrity with The Vic Porcelli Show. A week later, the hosts informed me that YouTube had banned Newstalk STL, the radio station airing the show, from the platform.

The hosts had asked me about a Rasmussen Reports poll that found over 50% of voters believe cheating impacted the 2020 presidential election. Again, neither the hosts nor I claimed that the election was stolen. Rather, our conversation focused on Americans perceptions of elections, and how it was essential for the sake of our democracy to pass legislation making it easier to vote, but harder to cheat.

For this, the unelected tech arbiters at YouTube judged Newstalk STL too dangerous to be heard. The station was summarily banned.

Thankfully, state and federallawmakers are starting to fight back against Big Tech censorship that suppresses Americans First Amendment rights online.

On May 24, 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill making it easier for private citizens to sue tech giants over online censorship, as well as fining social media companies who deplatform candidates for office during campaign season.

The legislation requires platforms to be open and transparent in how they moderate content and gives users a way to fight for their rights if Big Tech decides to cancel them.

This is a great first step. Moreover, allowing this type of legislation to develop at the state level will let people see what works and what doesnt as the fight against online censorship intensifies.

>>>Dont Be Tricked Into Allowing Big Tech to Weaponize Misinformation

But there is a need for action at the federal level.

Section 230, an archaic law passed when the internet was born, is often used as a shield for Big Tech companies to hide behind.

Republican Reps. Cathy McMorris Rogers of Washington and Jim Jordan of Ohio are drafting legislation that would removeSection 230 protections forcompanies like YouTube while protecting smaller platforms and allowing for competition.

Any long-term solution to Big Tech censorship will require a fusion of state and local government cooperation. Big Tech censorship represents an existential threat to the future of free speech in America and must be fought at all costs.

If the First Amendment is dead online, it will soon die offline too.

Original post:

Want To Fight Big Tech Censorship? Here's Where To Start - Heritage.org

The entrance to Google's U.K. offices in London.

Olly Curtis | Future Publishing | via Getty Images

The U.K.'s competition regulator has opened a fresh investigation into Google, taking aim at the company's role in the advertising technology market.

It's the second major antitrust probe to target Google's ad practices in the U.K. The Competition and Markets Authority launched a separate investigation with the European Union into Google and Facebook parent company Meta earlier this year over concerns that a 2018 pact between the two companies known as "Jedi Blue" restricted competition in digital advertising.

The CMA said Thursday it was assessing whether Google's role in the ad tech industry may be distorting competition. The internet giant is a dominant player in the online ad market.

Google acts as both a demand-side platform, which offers publishers' ad inventory to marketers, and an ad exchange, which lets advertisers compete for advertising space on publishers' websites, the CMA said. It also runs ad servers which manage publishers' inventory.

Regulators are concerned Google may have illegally favored its own ad exchange services to the detriment of rivals. The CMA is also worried Google limited the compatibility of its ad exchange with third-party ad servers to make it harder for competing ad servers to compete.

"Weakening competition in this area could reduce the ad revenues of publishers, who may be forced to compromise the quality of their content to cut costs or put their content behind paywalls," Andrea Coscelli, the CMA's chief executive, said in a statement.

"It may also be raising costs for advertisers which are passed on through higher prices for advertised goods and services."

It comes after an earlier competition probe from both the U.K. and EU into "Jedi Blue." The deal allegedly involved Google and Meta rigging auctions for online ads and illegally fixing prices.

The CMA wants more powers to scrutinize anti-competitive behavior from tech giants under a new regulatory body called the Digital Markets Unit. The new regulator, proposed in 2020, would have the power to impose fines of up to 10% of tech companies' global annual revenues for breaching new digital rules. However, the government has yet to give the watchdog powers to impose these fines.

See the original post here:

Google hit by second UK antitrust probe into online ad dominance - CNBC

Alibaba, whose headquarters are pictured here on May 26, said its online physical goods GMV in China, excluding unpaid orders, fell further in April, with a "low teens" decline from a year ago.

Str | Afp | Getty Images

BEIJING Chinese tech giants Alibaba, Tencent and JD.com have all posted their slowest revenue growth on record as Covid and Beijing's tech crackdown took their toll.

Since the fall of 2020, China has fined corporations and scrutinized them for alleged monopolistic practices. A Covid resurgence since March has added pressure to growth, with travel restrictions and stay-home orders disrupting supply chains and logistics.

Reflecting the economic slowdown, e-commerce giant Alibaba reported on Thursday a drop in online shopping for its two main China platforms in the quarter ended March 31.

The company's total revenue rose by 9% in the latest quarter from a year ago the slowest on record, according to financial history accessed through Wind Information.

Tencent's revenue for the quarter was little changed, while JD.com saw a roughly 18% increase from a year ago both the slowest on record, according to Wind data.

Alibaba shares soared by nearly 15% in New York trading overnight after reporting better-than-expected results. JD.com's U.S.-listed shares rose by 5%, while Tencent's climbed more than 1% in Hong Kong trading Friday.

"Macro-sensitive stocks" such as Alibaba and Baidu might temporarily benefit from low earnings expectations, and anticipation that Shanghai is close to ending its lockdown, Jialong Shi and Thomas Shen, analysts at Nomura, said in a note Friday.

"However, we believe the sustainability of this rally will likely be dictated by the pace of recovery for China consumer demand, which the market will likely closely follow over the coming months," the analysts said.

China's already sluggish retail sales fell further in April, down 11.1% from a year ago.

Even online sales of physical goods fell, down by 1% worse than during the initial shock of the pandemic in 2020. That's according to CNBC calculations of official data accessed through Wind Information.

The Nomura analysts said many businesses were deciding to cut marketing spending as a way to ride out the difficult environment, "which might lead to a belated recovery in the ads industry even if China is completely out of the lockdown mode."

Alibaba said excluding unpaid orders, gross merchandise value (GMV) saw a "low single-digit decline" from a year ago, according to an earnings call transcript from FactSet. GMV is a measure of goods sold over a set period of time.

The company said its online physical goods GMV in China, excluding unpaid orders, fell further in April, with a "low teens" decline from a year ago. The company said more than 80 cities in China mostly national economic centers reported confirmed Covid cases in April. That represents more than half of Alibaba's China retail marketplace GMV.

For the April to June quarter, China Renaissance analysts said in a report they expect Alibaba's China commerce GMV to drop by 13.5% year-on-year, for a 6% decline in overall net revenue.

Other Chinese companies reporting results for the latest quarter painted a more upbeat picture.

Baidu: Chinese tech company Baidu's mild 1% quarterly revenue increase was only the worst since 2020, a year that saw two quarters of revenue decline, Wind data showed. The search engine giant has expanded in recent years into cloud services and robotaxis.

"We see solid progress in its various AI initiatives," Daiwa Capital Markets analysts wrote in a report Thursday. They noted Baidu's AI cloud revenue grew by 45% year-on-year in the first quarter, faster than the company's peers.

Dada: Grocery delivery company Dada, which is now majority-owned by JD, reported a 21% year-on-year revenue increase in the latest quarter, the best since the third quarter of 2021, according to Wind. Dada said it was one of the businesses local government approved to maintain operations during lockdowns.

The company reported more than triple the GMV and double the number of active customers in the 12 months ended late March, versus the same period two years ago.

Kuaishou: Short-video, livestreaming and emerging e-commerce app Kuaishou reported 19% revenue growth in the latest quarter, the slowest on record, although only going back to the third quarter of 2020, Wind showed.

"Despite the recent macro uncertainties due to COVID, we think Kuaishou's bottom-up efforts in market share gains in ad and e-commerce and effective cost control could continue to help Kuaishou outperform on fundamentals," UBS analyst Felix Liu and a team wrote this week.

It's "impressive" that Kuaishou delivered growth in the number of active users and time spent per user, while using less-than-expected sales and marketing expenses, the analysts said.

See the article here:

Alibaba, Tencent and JD.com all just posted their slowest revenue growth on record - CNBC

Mehdi Bennis is a professor at the University of Oulu in Finland researching 6G.

Elizabeth Schulze | CNBC

Nokia CEO Pekka Lundmark expects 6G mobile networks to be in operation by the end of the decade but he doesn't think the smartphone will be the most "common interface" by then.

Speaking on a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos Tuesday, Lundmark said he expects 6G to hit the commercial market around 2030, which coincides roughly with when Huawei expects to see the technology on the market.

Headquartered in Finland, Nokia builds telecoms networks that enable phones and other internet-enabled devices to communicate with one another.

Asked when he thinks the world will move away from using smartphones to using smart glasses and other devices that are worn on the face, Lundmark said it will happen before 6G arrives.

"By then, definitely the smartphone as we know it today will not anymore be the most common interface," he said. "Many of these things will be built directly into our bodies."

He did not specify exactly what he was referring to but some companies, such as Elon Musk's Neuralink, are working on producing electronic devices that can be implanted into the brain and used for communication with machines and other people. On a more basic level, chips can be implanted into people's fingers and used to unlock things.

The exact definition of 6G is currently unclear and the world is only just getting to grips with 5G.

5G refers to next-generation mobile networks that offer super-fast data speeds that promise to support technologies like driverless cars and virtual reality.

Elsewhere, U.S. tech giants such as Meta, Google and Microsoft are working on new augmented reality headsets that could one day replace the smartphone.

Speaking on the same panel, Google CFO Ruth Porat said: "We believe that one of the big advantages of augmented reality is actually solving problems here on Earth."

"It will be things like having glasses and being able to translate as you speak with glasses," she added. "Those are very close."

Google previously launched an AR headset called Google Glass but ultimately pulled it after the device failed to gain traction.

The tech leaders also discussed the opportunities and challenges that the metaverse presents.

By 2030, Lundmark said he believes there will be a "digital twin of everything" that will require "massive computational resources."

In order to transmit all the computers bits that the metaverse will require, networks will need to be at least 100 times or even 1,000 times faster than they are today, Lundmark said.

Go here to see the original:

Nokia CEO says 6G will be here by 2030 but you might not access it via your smartphone - CNBC

A group of US senators led by Ed Markey of Massachusetts is calling on Apple and Google to implement new app store policies that prohibit developers from collecting data that would threaten women seeking abortions. In separate letters sent to the CEOs of both companies, the group said the two tech giants must act to protect individuals exercising their right to choose from groups that would target them for their decision.

Following the leak of the Supreme Courts draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, we are concerned that anti-abortion prosecutors and other actors will attempt to access and leverage personal information including data regarding location, online activity, health, and biometrics in ways that threaten the wellbeing of those exercising their right to choose, the letter addressed to Google CEO Sundar Pichai states.

Pointing to the prevalence of online platforms selling user information to data brokers, the group warns that abortion prosecutors and even vigilantes could exploit those practices to intimidate women who seek abortions or harass them retroactively.

Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont also signed the letters. The letters follow a separate call from Congressional Democrats that came earlier in the week urging Google to stop collecting location data over many of the same concerns. The idea that various groups, including law enforcement agencies, could weaponize app data isnt an imagined threat. A recent report from Georgetown Laws Center on Privacy and Technology found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has built up a mass surveillance system that includes information about almost all US residents, and it did so partly by purchasing data from private companies. The senators asked Pichai and Tim Cook to respond to the letters by June 17th.

Link:

Senators ask Apple and Google to prohibit data collection that targets abortion seekers - Yahoo Finance

The Chinese government has announced that it will again allow "platform companies" Beijing's term for tech giants to list on overseas stock markets, marking a loosening of restrictions on the sector.

"Platform companies will be encouraged to list on domestic and overseas markets in accordance with laws and regulations," announced premier Li Keqiang at an executive meeting of China's State Council a body akin to cabinet in the USA or parliamentary democracies.

The statement comes a week after vice premier Liu He advocated technology and government cooperation and a digital economy that supports an opening to "the outside world" to around 100 members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Congress (CPPCC).

Those initiatives contrast with China's recent actions that reined in its big tech companies, and the ongoing campaign to regulate online activities such as gaming, sharing freewheeling opinions, data storage, and anticompetitive behavior.

Those crackdowns have seen some foreign companies leave China, with Linkedin and Yahoo! choosing to depart the Middle Kingdom.

China's strict COVID-19 lockdowns have seen tech execs warn of wide economic damage, and the announcement that platform companies will be allowed to list overseas was made as part of a larger set of initiatives aimed at stimulating the domestic economy.

But for some Chinese tech companies that sought to list abroad, this change could be too little, too late.

Just days after Chinese Uber analog DiDi Chuxing floated on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), Beijing's regulators launched an investigation into its data protection policies.

Chinese regulators were specifically concerned about the app's ability to collect personal information in violation of PRC laws and regulations. They promptly removed the app from local app stores, along with 25 others, citing national security concerns.

Regulators then pressured the company to delist from NYSE and list in Hong Kong instead, which it dutifully announced it would do, having been beaten down by the China app store removal and a US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

On Monday, the company announced it had advised the NYSE to proceed with its delisting following a shareholder vote. Shares are expected to be delisted in June.

Read more:

Beijing reverses ban on tech companies listing offshore - The Register

WASHINGTON, May 16, 2022 A representative from a growing conservative social media platform said last week that she hopes Twitter, under new leadership, will emerge as a sustainable platform for free speech.

Amy Peikoff, chief policy officer of social media platform Parler, said as much during a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event Wednesday, in which she wondered about the implications of platforms banning accounts for views deemed controversial.

The social media world has been captivated by the lingering possibility that SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk could buy Twitter, which the billionaire has criticized for making decisions he said infringe on free speech.

Before Musks decision to go in on the company, Parler saw a surge in member sign-ups after former President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter for comments he made that the platform saw as encouraging the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, a move Peikoff criticized. (Trump also criticized the move.)

Peikoff said she believes Twitter should be a free speech platform just like Parler and hopes for sustainable change with Musks promise.

At Parler, we expect you to think for yourself and curate your own feed, Peikoff told Broadband Breakfast Editor and Publisher Drew Clark. The difference between Twitter and Parler is that on Parler the content is controlled by individuals; Twitter takes it upon itself to moderate by itself.

She recommended tools in the hands of the individual users to reward productive discourse and exercise freedom of association.

Peikoff criticized Twitter for permanently banning Donald Trump following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, and recounted the struggle Parler had in obtaining access to hosting services on AWS, Amazons web services platform.

While she defended the role of Section 230 of the Telecom Act for Parler and others, Peikoff criticized what she described as Twitters collusion with the government. Section 230 provides immunity from civil suits for comments posted by others on a social media network.

For example, Peikoff cited a July 2021 statement by former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki raising concerns with misinformation on social media. When Twitter takes action to stifle anti-vaccination speech at the behest of the White House, that crosses the line into a form of censorship by social media giants that is, in effect, a form of state action.

Conservatives censored by Twitter or other social media networks that are undertaking such state action are wrongfully being deprived of their First Amendment rights, she said.

I would not like to see more of this entanglement of government and platforms going forward, she said Peikoff and instead to leave human beings free to information and speech.

Screenshot of Drew Clark and Amy Peikoff during Wednesdays Broadband Breakfasts Online Event

OurBroadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET.Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, orREGISTERHERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 12 Noon ET Mr. Musk Goes to Washington: Will Twitters New Owner Change the Debate About Social Media?

The acquisition of social media powerhouse Twitter by Elon Musk, the worlds richest man, raises a host of issues about social media, free speech, and the power of persuasion in our digital age. Twitter already serves as the worlds de facto public square. But it hasnt been without controversy, including the platforms decision to ban former President Donald Trump in the wake of his tweets during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Under new management, will Twitter become more hospitable to Trump and his allies? Does Twitter have a free speech problem? How will Mr. Musks acquisition change the debate about social media and Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act?

Guests for this Broadband Breakfast for Lunch session:

Amy Peikoff is the Chief Policy Officer of Parler. After completing her Ph.D., she taught at universities (University of Texas, Austin, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, United States Air Force Academy) and law schools (Chapman, Southwestern), publishing frequently cited academic articles on privacy law, as well as op-eds in leading newspapers across the country on a range of issues. Just prior to joining Parler, she founded and was President of the Center for the Legalization of Privacy, which submitted an amicus brief in United States v. Facebook in 2019.

Drew Clarkis the Editor and Publisher ofBroadbandBreakfast.com and a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney. Drew brings experts and practitioners together to advance the benefits provided by broadband. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he served as head of a State Broadband Initiative, the Partnership for a Connected Illinois. He is also the President of the Rural Telecommunications Congress.

WATCH HERE, or onYouTube,TwitterandFacebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTubechannel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch onYouTube,TwitterandFacebook.

See a complete list ofupcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Onlineevents.

https://pixabay.com/vectors/elon-musk-twitter-owner-investor-7159200/

Excerpt from:

Big Tech Reforms Need Review of Cybersecurity to Ensure Capabilities Will Not Be Diminished, Event Hears - BroadbandBreakfast.com