Monthly Archives: May 2022

A bill that would allow California parents to sue technology companies over their children becoming addicted to social media has passed a significant milestone.

The Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act passed the state assembly on Monday. This bill, which was submitted in March by state lawmakers, would allow parents to sue companies such as TikTok and Instagram for up to $25,000 if a child is determined to be "addicted" to the app.

If passed into law, social platforms could be considered liable if they "developed, designed, implemented, or maintained features that were known, or should have been known, by the platform to be addictive to child users," the bill reads.

AIRBNB TO REMOVE LISTINGS AND EXPERIENCES IN CHINA

The bill also adopts a vague definition of addiction. If the bill is passed, then a social media company can be held liable for "addiction" if it "indicates preoccupation or obsession with, or withdrawal or difficulty to cease or reduce use of, a social media platform despite the user's desire to cease or reduce that use" and if it "causes or contributes to physical, mental, emotional, developmental, or material harms to the user."

The bill was introduced on March 15 by state assembly members Buffy Wicks, a Democrat, and Jordan Cunningham, a Republican. The bill was filed with the hope of forcing tech companies to "bear some of the social costs that they put on all of our children," Cunningham said, according to the Wall Street Journal.

While the assembly vote is a significant step forward, the bill will still need to be approved by the state Senate before it becomes law.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Tech companies and business moguls have criticized the bill and threatened to pull out of the state if it becomes law. If the SMPDC Act passes, then "social media companies and online web services would have no choice but to cease operations for kids under 18 and would implement stringent age-verification in order to ensure that adolescents did not use their sites," the bipartisan organization TechNet told lawmakers in a letter.

Lawmakers have been attempting to restrict the effects of social media on youth for years. The efforts gained considerable attention after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen went public in October 2021 and spoke publicly about the company's algorithmic effects on teenagers.

Original post:

California bill would allow parents to sue Big Tech over social media addiction - Washington Examiner

In tech policy, everything comes with a cost. If you remove more content, youll get accused of censorship. If you reverse course and allow more posts to stay up, youll get criticized for turning a blind eye to harmful speech. If you tighten privacy controls to try to protect against data misuse, youre accused of creating barriers that stand in the way of fair competition. If you loosen them, you increase the risk of data misuse or a security breach.

Developing a sensible policy agenda for reforming the tech sector isnt about finding a cost-free magic bullet; rather, its about identifying reform proposals with benefits that outweigh costs and then getting comfortable with those costs. A pragmatic approach to any tech policy proposal requires being realistic and transparent about its downsides.

New legislation in Europe carves out a bold new path in tech policy, but it creates the impression this path is cost-free. Its not.

In recent weeks, Europe has agreed to landmark deals that will shape power and speech in the tech sector: the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DMA addresses competitive dynamics, imposing a wide array of restrictions on U.S. Big Tech firms. The DSA is focused on expression; it will require platforms to remove illegal content and publish transparency reports while also creating additional responsibilities for large platforms.

These new regulations will dramatically shift how tech products look and feel. Because messaging platforms are obligated to interoperate with other messaging services, Apple and WhatsApp may no longer be able to offer the same level of encryption for messages. Because companies are prevented from offering preferential treatment to their own products, Google may not be able to offer its search results box, which provides a businesss address, phone number, and website at the top of the results page. New content moderation requirements will likely make it harder for smaller tech companies to compete with larger platforms, requiring them to hire more lawyers to handle regulatory compliance rather than engineers to build products.

These tradeoffs are real, but the text creates the misleading impression that its possible to have it all. For example, the provision requiring messaging services to interoperatemeaning that you could send a message from a service like WhatsApp to a different one, like iMessagestates that companies should offer this interoperability without reducing their privacy protections. A company should ensure that interoperability does not undermine a high level of security and data protection.

Maybe a brilliant engineer at a company like WhatsApp or Apple will be able to figure out a way to do that, but its unlikely. Several years ago, when I was leading public policy at WhatsApp, Europe was calling for messaging products like WhatsApp to interoperate with SMS services offered by European telcos like Vodafone and Orange. I asked several WhatsApp engineers if this type of interoperability was possible without weakening the end-to-end encryption that was a default, defining security feature of our product. The answer I received from every engineer I talked to was no. According to recent statements by the head of WhatsApp, the answer seems to be the same today.

Of course, weakening encryption might be a cost that Europeans should be willing to bear. Encryption creates its own set of challenges, frustrating law enforcement and making it easier for harmful content to escape detection. A sober assessment of costs and benefits might still tilt in favor of requiring messaging services to interoperate, since the benefits of interoperability might outweigh the costs to privacy.

The problem is that policymakers are not engaging in an honest, transparent accounting of these costs and benefits. Their proposals create the illusion of a costless future, one in which users send messages freely between platforms with the same level of privacy and security they have today. That future is a myth.

Platforms face tremendous uncertainty as they contemplate how to comply with these laws. Should they alter their products if doing so would require them to degrade security? How much security risk will be tolerable to policymakers in Brussels? Do they need to interoperate with another messaging service that they think is unsafe?

The DMA punts on these questions, leaving them to be figured out over time through lawsuits and consultations with the European Commission. That process will almost certainly be burdensome and uncertain, making it harder for companies to offer the best possible products in Europe.

Despite this ambiguity, these reforms in Europe are on a path to implementation. When they come into effect, Europe will join a small but growing list of countries that have enacted significantly more stringent regulations on the tech sector. China, for instance, has taken steps to tighten its antitrust laws, limit the time that kids spend gaming, and address cybersecurity and privacy risks.

Enactment of real reform should create an opportunity to learn. With new regulatory regimes underway, policymakers can look at the actual costs and benefits of reform, rather than merely speculating about them. In Europe, for instance, experts should track the impact of the interoperability mandate, assessing whether the benefits to innovation and competitiveness outweigh the costs to privacy and security.

These assessments could play an important role as Congress considers its own set of reforms. Several proposals have been introduced by senators and representatives of both parties, and many of them parallel the elements of reform in Europe and China.

Yet like in Europe, U.S. legislators have not provided a clear accounting of the costs and benefits of their proposals. They seek to limit how platforms render search results, but dont discuss the impact on products like Google and Amazon Basics. They seek to restrict the online advertising business, but dont explain how that would affect advertising prices for small businesses. They seek to restrict acquisitions by large platforms but dont examine the effect that would have on the venture capital market in communities like mine, where startups thrive in the Research Triangle Park in part because of the possibility of being acquired by a large company.

Cost-benefit analysis is used routinely by the executive branch to assess whether a government rule would make good public policy. This analysis is not the final word on whether a rule should go into effect, but instead is used as a data point that brings rigor to the policy development process.

The same approach could be useful to Congress as it considers tech reform, enabling the government to better understand the impact of proposals on competition, innovation, safety, privacy, security, expression, and national security. Conducting this process transparently and publishing the results would also foster the kind of open debate that the public deserves.

Its certainly possible the benefits of tech policy reform will exceed its costs. But to pretend that reform is a cost-free exercise sends a misleading signal that could result in making our tech products worse, not better.

Matt Perault is director of the Center on Technology Policy at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, a professor of the practice at UNCs School of Information and Library Science, and a consultant on technology policy issues at Open Water Strategies.

Image: Reuters.

Excerpt from:

No Magic Bullet: The Difficulties of Reforming Big Tech - The National Interest Online

NEW YORK, May 23, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --A tectonic shift is occurring in the financial services industry, as technology companies jostle with incumbent firms for position in a market that is expanding rapidly into new services, according to global management consulting firm Oliver Wyman. Established firms traditionally organized around managing risk are still growing, but most of the industry's value creation is being driven by financial infrastructure, data, and technology (FIT) companies.

In its 24th annual State of the Financial Services Industry Report, titled The Tectonic Shift Between Risk, Data, and Technology, Oliver Wyman states that the primary driver of this value shift is the slowing growth of more capital-intensive risk intermediation services, which have been growing at about 3% a year over the last decade, compared with capital-light services linked to connected data services and value technology services, which have been growing at about 8% a year.

As a result of this ongoing shift, nearly one-third of the world's largest 50 financial institutions are now FITs firms, up from only two a decade ago.

"The financial services industry has had a good decade no major crisis, a huge amount of innovation, and playing an important societal role in COVID and on climate," said Ted Moynihan, Partner and Global Head of Financial Services at Oliver Wyman. "The decade has also seen a dramatic change in the financial services landscape, to a wider industry with more firms acting in co-opetition with each other, and overall a shift in relative value from incumbents to new players. With rising interest rates and volatile markets, we anticipate quite different conditions in the next few years, with the benefits going to those firms that can anticipate and pivot to the new sources of value growth."

The Oliver Wyman State of Financial Services 2022 report shows that without more action, this shift in relative value is poised to continue. Most incumbents are struggling to find a decisive way to reorganize around, and invest effectively in, the changing sources of value and growth in the industry.

As big tech business models converge, mobile wallets and moves into embedded finance will become more prominent, according to the report, as the emergence of digital assets and digital identification amplify and accelerate the value shift.

That said, current market and economic conditions may provide an opportunity for incumbent firms to regain share. Rising interest rates should deliver an earnings boost to some banks and insurers, and investors are challenging some big tech and FITs firms' business models. If incumbents can pivot more decisively toward new sources of value and invest earnings carefully, there are significant opportunities.

In addition, the 2022 State of Financial Services report finds that while the top incumbent firms in the industry have increased their market value by 70% over the past decade, delivering $1.3 trillion in new value, a combination of large financial infrastructure, data, and fintech firms have delivered 400% value growth and nearly $2.3 trillion of value. Essentially, more total value is being created outside the incumbent industry, from firms that purport to be in similar ecosystems with the incumbents. And $9 trillion in new value has been created by the big tech industry - even with the significant adjustments in 2022 - which is increasingly moving into financial services through payments initially but is expanding to provide many other financial services.

Additional Key Findings:

To view the Oliver Wyman State of the Financial Services Industry 2022 Report, click here.

Key Exhibits:

About Oliver Wyman

Oliver Wyman is a global leader in management consulting. With offices in more than 70 cities across 30 countries, Oliver Wyman combines deep industry knowledge with specialized expertise in strategy, operations, risk management, and organization transformation. The firm has more than 5,500 professionals around the world who work with clients to optimize their business, improve their operations and risk profile, and accelerate their organizational performance to seize the most attractive opportunities. Oliver Wyman is a business of Marsh McLennan [NYSE: MMC]. For more information, visit http://www.oliverwyman.com. Follow Oliver Wyman on Twitter @OliverWyman.

SOURCE Oliver Wyman

See the rest here:

Big Tech, Merchants, and a Range of Data and Fintech Firms Now Account for 35% of the Value of the Financial Services Industry, According to Oliver...

Who decides who can speak on social media?

Violent videos like the livestream of last weekends mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., have long been a problem for social media sites. Such atrocities always stir up national debate about the responsibilities of social media companies to block harmful material. This time, the debate is happening amid a messy fight about free speech that the companies are taking to the Supreme Court.

The tech industry is challenging a Texas law aimed at stopping social media censorship. The law, HB 20, which was prompted by complaints from conservatives, requires platforms with at least 50 million users to refrain from removing user posts because they convey a certain viewpoint. It was passed last year but was blocked by a lower court before an appeals court reinstated it last week, allowing it to go into effect immediately. NetChoice, an industry group that includes Facebook, Twitter and TikTok, along with the Computer & Communications Industry Association, is asking the Supreme Court to block the law again while legal challenges are pending. They filed an emergency petition to the high courts so-called shadow docket, where decisions are made quickly, typically without oral arguments.

The law is so broad that it could prevent platforms from removing the most extreme posts, including the video of the shooting and the suspects racist manifesto, said Chris Marchese, policy counsel for NetChoice. Such restrictions violate the companies free speech rights, Marchese told DealBook: The First Amendment is clear. But some constitutional law experts are a little less certain. Genevieve Lakier, a free speech specialist at the University of Chicago law school, told DealBook that what seemed patently unconstitutional just two weeks ago isnt so clear now.

Under First Amendment law as it has existed so far, its pretty clear that the government cant ban private platforms from viewpoint discriminating, she said. This is traditionally a position embraced by conservative justices. But Lakier said that Justice Clarence Thomas has been arguing otherwise, and the appeals court decision to lift the stay on the Texas law suggests that some judges have picked up on the justices arguments. If so, thats a significant change, Lakier said.

If the Supreme Court refuses to act, it might signal a sea change in free speech law. That would be a pretty profound indication that at least some of the justices believe the government can have much more say in telling private companies what to do, Lakier said. Whats more likely to happen, she believes, is that the Supreme Court will stay the Texas law for now, giving the companies what they want without indicating what could happen later.

A decision on the petition should come quickly, Marchese said, and tech and legal experts are already asking the court for permission to chime in with amicus briefs.

Jerome Powell says the Fed is watching for signs that inflations easing. The Fed chair said the central bank was prepared to raise rates more quickly if price pressures persist. If it looks to be abating, then we can consider moving to a slower pace, Powell said, speaking on a Wall Street Journal livestream.

Targets profit falls short of Wall Street expectations. The company said higher freight costs, inventory shortages and lower-than-expected sales had hurt its results. Its shares were down 22 percent in premarket trading. Yesterday, Walmart reported a 25 percent drop in first-quarter profit.

JP Morgan shareholders reject Jamie Dimons $52.6 million bonus. The vote, which is not binding, was an unusual signal of disapproval for the C.E.O., and for the stock option award that directors gave him last year to encourage him to stay.

The Justice Department sues Steve Wynn. The government accused the former casino mogul of acting as a foreign agent by serving as a middleman for the Chinese government and lobbying President Trump, without registering as one.

Japans economy shrinks. The worlds third-largest economy contracted at an annualized rate of 1 percent in the first quarter, set back by coronavirus restrictions, higher energy prices and supply chain issues. Analysts say growth is likely to bounce back in the second quarter.

Gopuff, a quick-delivery company that was a pandemic darling, is now navigating a trickier environment, one that has forced it to delay an I.P.O. and cut jobs. Its about to get some guidance from an important new friend.

May 24, 2022, 6:34 p.m. ET

Bob Iger, the former Disney C.E.O., is investing in Gopuff, and will advise its founders, DealBook is first to report. Iger told DealBook that hes always been interested in using technology to serve consumers. Gopuff is a great example of this, and I am impressed with its product, strategy and its founders, he said. I look forward to advising them as they continue to grow, and I am confident they have the scale and the capital to do so. Iger and Gopuff did not disclose the size of his investment.

Gopuff, which promises deliveries of food, drinks and other products in 30 minutes or less, soared to a $15 billion valuation last year and operates in 1,200 cities. This year it put off an I.P.O. and, as of last month, was seeking to raise $1 billion in debt that could potentially be turned into stock. It also lowered its drivers minimum-pay guarantees in California, and in March it laid off about 450 people, or 3 percent of its workers. Headquartered in Philadelphia, the company was founded in 2013 by Yakir Gola and Rafael Ilishayev, two sophomores at Drexel University who are now its co-C.E.O.s. Gopuffs investors include Accel, Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and SoftBanks Vision Fund, according to Bloomberg.

The rapid-delivery business is a tough one, with intense competition. Getir, one of the largest companies in the industry, aims to deliver groceries in 10 minutes. There is also the question of which business model will prevail for on-demand shopping: Gopuffs, in which it owns its inventory and keeps it in neighborhood fulfillment centers, or DoorDashs third-party delivery model, which has less overhead. And consolidation seems inevitable: Just this week, the German grocery delivery start-up Flink bought a French competitor, Cajoo.

Janet Yellen, in a speech to the Brussels Economic Forum yesterday, making the case that Russias actions are a reminder that countries should not trade security for cheap energy.

Luna, a cryptocurrency launched by Terraform Labs and its combative 30-year-old founder Do Kwon, traded for $116 in early April. Last week it collapsed. Its now valued at just under two-hundredths of a cent, meaning it takes more than 50 Lunas to add up to a single penny.

Luna offers a prime view of who gets hurt when cryptocurrencies collapse, and whos to blame, report The Timess David Yaffe-Bellany and Erin Griffith. Investors have lost as much as $300 billion in the recent crypto sell-off, which was accelerated by Lunas failure. Youve seen a bunch of people trying to trade in their reputations to make quick bucks, said Kathleen Breitman, a founder of the crypto platform Tezos. Now, she said, Theyre trying to console people who are seeing their life savings slip out from underneath them. Theres no defense for that.

Heres where investors and observers have placed the most blame for Lunas costly demise:

Do Kwon: He trumpeted Lunas world-changing potential, rallying a band of investors and supporters he proudly called Lunatics. He answered criticism of Luna and its sister currency, TerraUSD, with trash talk, once quipping, I dont debate the poor.

Institutional investors: Terraform touted investments from such high-profile crypto investors as Mike Novogratz. Critics are now accusing those Wall Street veterans of profiting from a cryptocurrency that had raised questions from the beginning. Paul Veradittakit, a partner at Pantera Capital, said in July 2021 that his firm had long been a supporter of Kwon, and that it would continue to support Terra as it grew. Less than nine months later, Pantera had dumped nearly 80 percent of its stake in Luna, booking a 10,000 percent return on its initial $1.7 million investment. (Veradittakit says his firm sold when Lunas price spiked above what he thought the currency was worth. Pantera, like other crypto investors, says it sold assets recently to avoid a downturn.)

Financial innovation: Part of cryptos investment appeal is the prospect of owning a new kind of money. Kwon claimed he was creating a modern financial system in which users could conduct complicated transactions without relying on banks or other middlemen. TerraUSD was a stablecoin, designed to remain at a value of $1 but unlike earlier stablecoins, it was backed not by dollars or other traditional assets, but rather a formula linking it to Luna. It didnt work: The price of a Terra has dropped to $0.13. Nonetheless, investors have put $5 billion into stablecoins that are not backed by actual assets, according to figures from Coinmarketcap.com.

Its the cult of personality the bombastic, arrogant, Do Kwon attitude that sucks people in, said Brad Nickel, who hosts Mission: DeFi, a cryptocurrency podcast.

Deals

Policy

Russia-Ukraine war

The war is likely to force Russia to retreat across energy markets for years to come. (NYT)

The U.S. is expected to begin blocking Russia from paying American bondholders, raising the prospect of a Russian default. (NYT)

The war in Ukraine and a global tightening of credit have sown misery in low- and middle-income countries. (NYT)

Best of the rest

Wed like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Read the original post:

Big Tech Takes Texas to the Supreme Court - The New York Times

Events Roundupis aTechnical.lycolumnwhere we highlight events happening in the Pittsburgh area each month.Got a submission? Email us the details so we can consider it for our next roundup: pittsburgh@technical.ly.

Instead of the usual coworking or networking events that happen nearly every month in Pittsburgh, the highlights for June include two big conferences, one party and one grand opening celebration. Our big takeaway from that: Everyone wants to get down to business in strengthening the community, and have fun doing it.

Whether its the first conference for a revitalized organization, the launch of a newcomer to the local tech and manufacturing scene or the celebration of a longtime entrepreneurship hub, Junes calendar looks like a big party for Pittsburgh tech. So join in on any of these events as local industry leaders enjoy the fruits of their labor over the past couple of years, and hunker down to plan for what lies ahead.

The Digital Foundry at New Kensington an initiative in collaboration and innovation for manufacturing from Penn State University New Kensington and the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland is finally opening. Its initial launch will occur at an invite-only event for media and certain community members, and will feature speakers like Penn State University President Neeli Bendapudi and Richard King Mellon Foundation Executive Director Sam Reiman. A community open house will also occur at the foundry this month on the evening of June 24 as part of New Kensingtons Friday on Fifth.

Looking to build your team amid an ongoing tech labor shortage? Ascender has the event for you. Next month, the innovation community hub will host an in-person session on Creating a Recruitment Strategy that Scales With You. The session will feature longtime HR pro Tiffany Castagno, who is also the founder and CEO of HR consulting firm CEPHR. This event is in-person and requires proof of vaccination to attend. Masks are strongly encouraged as well.

The annual Pittsburgh TechFest, hosted by the Pittsburgh Technology Council, is back to bring together leading technologists and industry companies in the area, including representatives from Dicks Sporting Goods, Sparq Designs, FedEx, Aspirant, Tech Elevator and more. Specific focus areas for this year are cybersecurity, return to work policies, new innovations on the blockchain, agile project management and coding tools. This event is a cant-miss for anyone looking to advance their career in local tech.

The Partnership to Advance Responsible Technology (PART) will host its inaugural one-day conference to discuss responsible uses of technology in Pittsburgh and beyond. PART told Technical.ly earlier this year about plans to make the conference an annual occurrence, after releasing a comprehensive report on responsible uses of tech in Pittsburgh. This first event will feature panel discussions, fireside chats and a keynote address from the University of Virginias Rene Cummings, who is an instructor and data activist there. Plus, to top it all off, the event will take place at one of the most beautiful botanical sites in the city.

This lecture series/networking mixer focused on science, technology and pop culture or any other topic worth being nerdy about is picking up its activity in Pittsburgh. Since September, the local chapter has hosted three events, with the most recent taking place at the end of April. In June it will return to bring together discussions on galactic supernovas, bladders and the perils of using free WiFi. While not a tech industry event per se, this is a great chance to have some fun with others working in the science and technology space.

One of Pittsburghs favorite tech and innovation community hubs has been around for a decade, and its throwing a party to celebrate. This fun event will feature a yoga paint party, a content creation station, an absinthe-tasting demo, a steelpan demonstration and performance and a chance to upgrade your headshot with a professional photographer. Food will be provided by St. Clair Social and Made by Marla Mae, with beer from Arboretum Trail Brewing and cocktails courtesy of Wigle Whiskey. This party is sure to bring together some of the longtime leaders of Pittsburghs innovation community, so be sure to attend if youre looking to get involved.

Go here to see the original:

Events Roundup: Big tech parties and conferences are coming to Pittsburgh this June - Technical.ly

There is a limited risk of another housing bubble developing in Ireland due to stricter rules that have reduced risk in the financial system, the European Commission has found in an in-depth review. Naomi OLeary reports.

After a gap of more than two years, the World Economic Forum has gathered again in Davos, Switzerland. Joe Brennan is there for The Irish Times and rounds up the main stories on day one of the forum in his Davos Diary.

The shine has gone off equities, amid rampant inflation and war in Ukraine. In our personal finance feature, Fiona Reddan offers a guide to navigating the recent stock market volatility.

New family-friendly workplace policies have been introduced by professional services firm Grant Thornton, in a move designed to help it recruit and retain top talent. It could be a win-win for the staff and the firm, writes Cantillon.

After years of spectacular growth and stellar investment returns, Big Tech stocks have taken a battering in recent months. Should we be worried? Laura Slattery gives her verdict in her weekly column.

In Q&A, a retired couple have a tracker mortgage that has been sold to a third party and wonder if their new lender might be open to an offer to clear the debt. Dominic Coyle offers some guidance.

In Me & My Money, Niamh Shaw, engineer, scientist and writer who lectures at the International Space University in Strasbourg, makes the case for a world without money. Tony Clayton-Lea tells the story.

Stay up to date with all our business news: sign up to our business news alerts and our Business Today daily email news digest.

The rest is here:

No housing bubble, Davos is back, and rout of Big Tech shares - The Irish Times

The best thing you can do with tequila is take it in one shot with salt and lemon. The second best thing is having this cocktail. Your black cherry Margarita is ready. OK, er, thanks? Well, that was fun. Dont drink and publish articles. Id take more offense, but the would-be comedian who made my drink before launching this unprovoked attack against my typical workday is actually a robot bartender by the name of Cecilia.ai, a drink-pouring, bad joke-telling piece of automated technology billed as the worlds first interactive bartender.

Welcome to just one of the many ways that big tech, big data and A.I. are infiltrating the drinks space.

Within the past several years, a sweeping range of tech and A.I. projects have made their debuts, appearing in nearly every corner of the alcohol industry. Swedens Mackmyra Whisky launched a product whose recipe was designed by an algorithm, while Carlsberg has invested millions of dollars into an A.I. initiative dubbed the Beer Fingerprinting Project, which evaluates the composition of beers and analyzes yeast types while matching desired flavors with chemical counterparts. Huge conglomerates like Diageo are using Buzzfeed-style interactive questionnaires such as Whats Your Whisky to try to help consumers find their flavor preferences, and a Ph.D. student at Virginia Techs department of food science and technology recently used machine learning to scan thousands of whiskey reviews to collate flavors, themes, and terminology.

Don't miss a drop!

And then there are the intelligent inventory management solutions such as BarTrack, which has raised more than $15 million since its founding in 2018, and commercial dashboards such as Tasting Intelligence, which uses A.I. to analyze reviews and social media posts, allowing brands to get their fingers on the pulse of the zeitgeist as it relates to whether people collectively like or dislike their latest extra hazy blueberry soured triple IPA.

These examples offer a glimpse across the spectrum of possibilities from intelligent evolutions where deploying data or advanced technology offer logical and clearly beneficial applications. Using A.I. to attempt to minimize a winerys impact on the environment while enabling it to thrive amid changing conditions is probably as lawful good as it gets. On the other hand, theres a staggering level of money and hype being thrown around for projects, and products, which on the surface dont appear to offer any kind of tangible improvement in the imbibing lives of consumers or producers and could potentially veer straight into that chaotic evil space pretty quickly.

Initially designed as a platform to provide vineyards with actionable data to adapt to climate change, Terraview has already partnered with more than 100 wineries, including large companies such as Pernod Ricard Spain. The company combines satellite imagery with historical weather and yield data, short- and long-term forecasts, microclimate segmentation, and more to deliver specific, data-backed insights with an assist from A.I. and machine learning.

Weve designed Terraview to help owners take data-backed reliable decisions while saving time and money, says Prateek Srivastava, co-founder and CEO of Terraview. He cites being able to automatically calculate yield estimates, monitor soil nutrition levels, and accurately optimize staffing needs as examples of his platforms direct, day-to-day impact for a given winery, but the companys aspirations are lofty, to say the least.

Our vision is to transform wine into a $1 trillion carbon-neutral industry and build tools which can serve over 500,000 growers around the world to tackle effects of accelerated climate change, Srivastava explains. We foresee our platform as a way to augment the generational knowledge and traditions followed by practitioners in agriculture, and to ensure primary industries are better equipped for tomorrow not just to survive, but continue to thrive.

By deploying a set of six finished bourbons that consumers can taste and combine together in thousands of ratios to create unique blends, WoodCraft Bourbon Blender is bringing whiskey creation to the masses with a plug-and-play bourbon franchise it says is ready to sweep across the nation.

Consumers go through a 45-minute experience where they learn the history and how to blend to their tastes, says WoodCraft Bourbon Blender co-founder Doug Hall, who spent decades working with companies like Edrington and Diageo. In addition to physical franchise capabilities, the company also offers at-home and online renditions, such as MyBourbonWizard.com.

Unsurprisingly, seasoned whiskey blenders dont believe a quick couple of questions or 45 minutes of history can produce an excellent whiskey. A.I. may be able to replicate an existing flavor, but interpreting whether the blend is good is based on taste and opinion, not just a formula, says Joe Beatrice, founder of Barrell Craft Spirits, a prominent blender and independent bottler. Our blending process uses constant experimentation and iteration, through which we discover nuance, and we seek flavor profiles that create a synergy together, Beatrice continues. But this is a subjective interpretation [not an automated one] which involves a team of professionals to taste and discuss whether a blend tastes good.

WoodCraft is already in action in the heartland of bourbon production, in Louisville, Ky. Earlier this year, the parent company behind Louisville Slugger and its popular Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory became a franchisee, opening up another wood-centric attraction downtown, Barrels & Billets. Its a continuation of Hillerich & Bradsby Co.s long history of creating uniquely Louisville experiences, says marketing director Andrew Soliday, noting that the experience is entirely different from a standard distillery tour and tasting.

Visitors taste through the six bourbons and blend them together in 0.5 to 1 milliliter increments to create a personal recipe, of which they can also buy a full-size bottle. Even for the novice, this interactive process gets at the heart of what blending whiskey represents in a way that a questionnaire or A.I. recommendation such as Diageos Whats Your Whisky, or Woodcrafts own virtual bourbon wizard simply cannot. When it comes to blending whiskey, there is no substitute for the human palate, Beatrice says.

As an interactive tourist attraction, WoodCrafts model seems like an intriguing way to bring more people into bourbon, though I wouldnt expect to find a franchise in every strip mall next to its Subway anytime soon. You can choose any footlong toppings you want, after all, but that doesnt really make you a chef, does it?

Not everyone can make a blend that tastes good, Beatrice says. Blending whiskey is a true art that is just now starting to get the attention and respect it deserves.

When you need to mix up to 120 cocktails per hour, Cecilias your gal. Developed in Israel and unveiled to the public at this years South Beach Wine & Food Festival, Cecilia, an interactive robot bartender, can deliver feisty jokes in 40 languages, tote 70 liters of booze, and even check IDs.

Our goal is [for Cecilia] to work alongside human bartenders and help them serve more drinks to their guests, says Nir Cohen Paraira, Cecilia.ais director of marketing. The world of service and hospitality is all about making the guests experience the best it can be, and advanced technology makes the service more personal, faster and fun.

Allow the collective groan from your favorite neighborhood bartenders to subside. Im wary of the full robot replacement of job sets that dont require, but currently include, human interaction, because I think this interaction keeps us grounded and connected with the rest of humanity were a social species, says Donny Clutterbuck, the executive vice president of the United States Bartenders Guild, and a bartender and manager at Cure Bar in Rochester, N.Y. If the point of a bar is to provide a third space in peoples lives, or a sociopolitical landscape where the bartender is sheriff, judge, smith, and friend, Im not entirely sure a robot can do this.

Cecilias backers arent trying to universally replace bartenders, though, which Brian Connors, director of the Bacardi Center of Excellence and a Florida International University hospitality professor, notes is the most common question he receives. Cecilia is about creating a new and different beverage experience in settings where guests dont expect the same level of hospitality; a bar or restaurant will always need a human service provider, for now, he says. Instead, he sees the robot living in busy theaters during intermission, or at any type of festival or conference.

Standing in line at a concert or sports game to receive a beer isnt a passion of anyones, and the interaction with the counter person or bartender is so quick and to the point that it may just as well be a robot for all practical purposes, Clutterbuck says, adding that this doesnt mean he supports a full replacement for bartenders.

Ultimately, whether or not youd like to be served a drink by a robot depends on what youre looking for from that drink. Is it a new cocktail developed by an expert bartender in whom you trust, or is it just a precisely stirred rendition of a classic drink whose exact recipe has been known the world over for the past century?

No one ever got anywhere by avoiding change and progress, and theres no point in being afraid of becoming irrelevant; I say bring on the future, Clutterbuck says. If the robot can also make me laugh, Im game to try it out.

In that case, Cecilia, who claims shes goddamn hilarious, has some material shed love for you to hear.

This story is a part of VP Pro, our free content platform and newsletter for the drinks industry, covering wine, beer, and liquor and beyond. Sign up for VP Pro now!

See original here:

The Good, the Bad & the Artificial: How Big Data & Tech Are Infiltrating the Alcohol Industry - VinePair

In March, the European Union (EU) took a significant step toward reining in Big Tech offenders with theDigital Markets Act. Targeting the gatekeepers of todays digital economy, the law is a historic piece of legislation and is a critical next step in the broader fight to level the playing field. However, this watershed moment has failed to reach the US, which continues to fall short in protecting consumers and innovative small businesses from predatory tech companies.

Congress must stop playing catch up with Europe and take a leadership role to protect its constituents. Courage and cooperation across the aisle are needed to strengthen the laws that protect the majority. Big tech, their lobbyists, and those seeking to fund their next election are far too cozy as mega-companies continue to exploit their dominance and suppress innovation. The lack of US action is embarrassing, as our friends across the pond take decisive steps.

The EU created the Digital Markets Act, or DMA, to limit the reach of internet powerhouses and restore balance to the economy. It is aimed at the most frequent offenders companies such as Amazon, Meta, and Google, which have repeatedly abused their large market share and used it to damage smaller, less powerful competitors.

The landmark measure carriesmajor consequencesfor these firms. Gatekeepers will now be required to interoperate with smaller firms, avoid setting their software as the default option, and no longer engage in self-preferencing. In short, the DMA is targeting weak points that prop up the largest and most powerful technology firms and crush innovation in the process. Once officially adopted by the EU, enforcement will be critical since we all know that Big Techcannot be trusted.

While European regulators remain at the helm of Big Tech reform, the US lags far behind. Politics have altered how we handle Big Tech, allowing mega-corporations to grow even bigger. Just recently, Amazon closed its $8.5 billion acquisition of MGM. The Federal Trade Commission hadevery opportunityto block the merger, but the deal was approved without much pushback. The FTC decision was deadlocked between two Democrat appointees and two Republican appointees, and politics came before ensuring fair competition.

Take data privacy, for example. In 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was enacted, a milestone in privacy protections that safeguards Europeans against the transfer of personal data. While the EU is focused on protecting consumers and competition, Big Tech lobbyists here at home are writing watered-down privacy bills for legislators that amounts to a disgusting practice that cedes legislators job to the powerful few. In Virginia, Amazonboostedpolitical donations tenfold before persuading lawmakers to pass a toothless privacy bill that their own lobbyists drafted rather than the elected officials.

It is not just the EU taking action as a collective body. In 2021, Italys antitrust watchdog fined Amazon over $1 billion for alleged abuse of market dominance one of the largest penalties levied on a US tech giant in Europe. Meanwhile, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into Amazon Web Services (AWS) is only nowmoving forward againunder Chair Lina Khan. A challenge to the MGM acquisition, among others, may come now that Khan has the majority on her side.

Its not too late for the US legislators to turn things around and lead. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley have introduced theAmerican Innovation and Choice Online Act, a bipartisan attempt at limiting Big Techs power. Much like the DMA, the bill aims to regulate online marketplaces abilities to diminish competitors. The legislation targets the same mega-corporations Apple, Meta, Google, and Amazon and these companies areterrified of the consequences.Tech lobbyists are desperate to spin the narrative and convince politicians this is gross governmental overreach. While it may not be as impactful as the DMA, its a step in the right direction.

The DMA is a strong example of how to tackle Big Tech, but this blueprint should have originated from US leaders, not EU leaders. Congress and antitrust authorities now need to take steps to protect American consumers and small businesses. America must lead in this critical area, not follow Europe. We have the ability to hold these companies accountable, and we must do it before its too late.

Written by Jason Boyce.Have you read?How AI Can Act As the Perfect Complement to Sales TeamsbyMaura Kautsky.4 Must-Try Methods to Transform Yourself Into a Thought LeaderbyAlyssa Patzius.Transcendence is Built on Strong CulturebyDiane Primo.One Companys Ace in the HolebyLeo Bottary.What Executives Should Know About Digital Currencies byOmid Malekan.The power of humble leadership: Twitter Canada managing director Paul Burns on humility and humanitybyCraig Dowden.

The rest is here:

Europe Is Getting Tough on Big Tech. When Will the US Do the Same? - CEOWORLD magazine