Category Archives: Big Tech

Likely voters in eight prominent swing states want Congress to pass the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act in addition to other legislative reforms aimed at Big Tech, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Coalition for App Fairness.

The poll results show bipartisan support for the Open App Markets Act, which prohibits app stores like Google Play and the App Store from requiring users to use a payment system owned or controlled by the company as a condition of distribution. (RELATED: Google Play Bans Twitter Alternative Gab.ai App Over Hate Speech)

Across all surveyed voters, 79% support the legislation. There is little variation based on political affiliation 81% of Republicans and Independents supported the act, while 77% of Democrats did. Additionally, 61% of surveyed voters said they would hold a more favorable view of their representative or senator if the elected official supported the act.

WASHINGTON, DC SEPTEMBER 15, 2020: Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust member Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) questions witnesses during a hearing on anticompetitive actions in Googles online advertising in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

OnMessage Public Strategies and Lake Research Partners conducted live, in-person interviews which surveyed 1,600 likely voters across Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin between June 6-10, 2022. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 2.5%.

There is clear, overwhelming, and bipartisan support for Congress to pass the Open App Markets Act and other legislative measures, the poll summarized. Across all states and key political demographics, likely voters believe Big Tech companies are too powerful and have not been regulated enough. Likely voters in these key political states are rejecting the arguments being made by Big Tech companies and their allies as they attempt to stave off new regulation.

The poll also showed 72% support for the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, an anti-trust act designed to prevent partisan censorship or discrimination by major online platforms. (RELATED: SCHOEN: Americans Are Sounding The Alarm Over Big Tech)

Overall, 68% of voters across parties agreed that Big Tech has too much power. In regard to Google and Apple, 67% and 59% believed the companies have too much power, respectively. Additionally, 69% of voters said these companies have used that power in a harmful way, according to the survey.

Go here to see the original:

Poll: Voters Want Congress To Rein In Big Tech - Daily Caller

By Brian Fung, CNN

As Senate lawmakers embark on a final, urgent push to pass landmark antitrust legislationto reshape the tech industry, Big Tech is bringing out its heaviest hitters to influence the members whose votes could decide the bills fate.

Next week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai will travel to Washington to meet with US lawmakers, two people familiar with the plans said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the visit publicly.

Pichais trip comes after Apple CEO Tim Cook was spotted roaming the Senate last week. (Apple did not respond to questions on Cooks visit at the time.) It also follows a report byPoliticothat Amazon CEO Andy Jassy has directly called multiple members of Congress to express opposition to the bill. In a statement, an Amazon spokesperson told CNN that Jassy meets with policymakers on both sides of the aisle regarding policy issues that could affect our customers.

Pichai is expected to meet with both Republicans and Democrats, one of the people said, and in addition to antitrust issues, the meetings may also cover a recent bipartisan push to develop digital privacy legislation. Pichai could also face questioning from Republican lawmakers who believe Google discriminates against conservatives, the people said.

Regulators warn big tech, including Meta more antitrust enforcement coming

We regularly engage with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on a range of issues including economic growth, small business support, immigration reform and cybersecurity, said Jose Castaeda, a Google spokesperson. Well continue to engage on issues relevant to people and businesses using our products.

The CEOs hands-on engagement highlights the stakes of the next few months for the tech industry in Washington.

Congress is considering multiple antitrust bills, beginning with legislation led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley that could erect strict barriers between a tech giants various lines of business. The proposal represents a direct challenge to Big Techs business models that encourage consumers to use multiple interlocking services owned by the same company.

Under the bill, for example, Google could be prevented from ranking its own restaurant reviews or YouTube links above other sites in search results, and Amazon could be prevented from selling its own branded goods on the e-commerce marketplace it currently shares with third-party sellers.

The tech industry has said the bill would threaten many features and services that consumers have come to depend on and that make their lives easier.

Seal your social rating software in vault then drop it to the ocean floor

Backers of the bill the American Innovation and Choice Online Act have pushed for a Senate floor vote within the next few weeks, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is said to be open to bringing the bill to the floor provided it has sufficient support.

Against that backdrop, the tech industry and its allies have sought to peel support away from the bill with a lobbying effort. In the first quarter of 2022, Apple spent $2.5 million on lobbying, a quarterly record for the company. Over the same period, Google spent $3.5 million, Amazon $5.3 million and Meta $5.4 million. Industry groups have spent millions on ads opposing the antitrust legislation.

Heightening the sense of urgency is the fact that Congress is running out of time to act this year. Surging consumer prices, the continuing war in Ukraine and the Jan. 6 hearings have dominated the congressional agenda. Once lawmakers break for August recess, few expect much progress in the fall, when the midterm elections are expected to take precedence. And a potential Republican takeover of Congress could also reshape the legislative landscape for Big Tech.

The-CNN-Wire & 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Link:

Antitrust showdown: Big Tech CEOs head to D.C. to lobby against legislation - WRAL TechWire

During the 2021 federal election campaign, several political parties made commitments to introduce news remuneration legislation.

Why is such legislation needed?

First, the need for strong, independent local news has never been higher it keeps communities connected and informed on issues that are impacting them directly. Covering city hall, provincial and territorial legislatures, our courts, and holding parliamentarians to account is vital to our democracy.

Second, there is a significant imbalance of power between tech giants and Canadian news outlets. To put this in perspective, the market capitalization of Google is about $2.3 trillion; Meta (Facebook) is over half a trillion. Together, thats larger than the GDP of Canada, Brazil, Italy or India. On a combined basis, these companies take of online ad revenues stands at more than 80 per cent. And the pandemic has only worsened the situation.

Third, with the prospect of Canadian legislation, Google and Meta negotiated content licensing agreements with a dozen or so news publishers, including large players like the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. These publishers should be getting compensated for their content. But we now have a situation of haves and have-nots among Canadas news publishers, with Google and Meta picking the winners and losers. And thats not fair especially to many smaller publishers who have been left out in the cold.

In April, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez introduced Bill C-18, the Online News Act. Our organizations, which represent hundreds of trusted news titles in every province and territory, support this legislation for three reasons.

First, it allows us publishers to come together and negotiate collectively. Currently, the Competition Act bars us from forming a collective. Given the overwhelming power imbalance, we will be in a stronger bargaining position if we stand together.

Second, it includes an enforcement mechanism. Baseball-style final offer arbitration ensures that parties put their best offer forward and the arbitrator picks one or the other. The hammer of arbitration incentivizes both sides to reach a fair settlement on their own.

Third, similar legislation in Australia is working. According to Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the amounts paid to news organizations were over $200 million. More important than how much is who reached content licensing agreements. Country Press Australia, an affiliation of 160 smaller regional newspapers, was able to reach settlements with Google and Meta. More recently, a group of 24 small Australian publishers reached a deal with Google. To its credit, Google has signed a content licensing agreement with every eligible Australian publisher.

While collective negotiation offers clear benefits to publishers, theres still a big question to answer. How should members of each collective organize themselves it in a way that is inclusive, fair and transparent to all its members?

News Media Canada and the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada believe that publishers large and small should benefit equally from any settlement, based on their proportionate investment in newsroom employees. Simply put, any settlements from collective negotiation would be shared among publishers on a pro-rata basis based on their total salaries and wages paid to eligible newsroom employees.

Bill C-18 builds on the success of Australias News Media Bargaining Code. While not a silver bullet, it brings the value of trustworthy, high-quality Canadian journalistic content to readers through more licensing deals, which will allow more publishers to reinvest in their newsrooms and in their digital business transformations.

Paul Deegan is president and CEO of News Media Canada. Maria Saras-Voutsinas is executive director of the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada.

Original post:

Opinion | Big Tech content licensing agreements have left smaller publishers out in the cold - Toronto Star

Big Tech in America has had enough of Congress' inability to pass pending legislation that includes tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to boost semiconductor manufacturing and R&D in the country.

In a letter [PDF] sent to Senate and House leaders Wednesday, the CEOs of Alphabet, Amazon, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, Salesforce, VMware, and dozens of other tech and tech-adjacent companies urged the two chambers of Congress to reach consensus on a long-stalled bill they believe will make the US more competitive against China and other countries.

"The rest of the world is not waiting for the US to act. Our global competitors are investing in their industry, their workers, and their economies, and it is imperative that Congress act to enhance US competitiveness," said the letter.

Organized by the Semiconductor Industry Association, the missive is also signed by top executives in the semiconductor industry, including AMD CEO Lisa Su, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, GlobalFoundries CEO Thomas Caufield, Micron Technology CEO Sanjay Mehrotra, and Nvidia General Counsel Timothy Teter.

The association said it hopes the final legislation will include a measure for investment tax credits that semiconductor manufacturing and design companies can advantage of in addition to the $52 billion in chip subsidies that has been the heart of the bill.

The letter is yet another sign of frustration from tech executives after a US competitiveness bill has stalled in Congress for several months. The House of Representatives passed its version of the legislation in February while the Senate passed its version in June 2021, but the Senate and House have been attempting to reconcile differences in their respective chip subsidies bills, but such efforts have faltered recently.

"We've already wasted several quarters since the Senate acted last year, and now it's time for us to move forward rapidly," Intel's Gelsinger told Congress back in March.

At issue is the problem that the US has been trailing Asian countries in the past few decades in semiconductor manufacturing. This has resulted in the US share of chipmaking falling from 37 percent in 1990 to 12 percent today. Meanwhile, 80 percent of chip production happens in Asia.

Tech companies and government officials have pushed for chip subsidies for multiple reasons: fighting against future chip shortages and inflation; reducing reliance on chipmakers in Asia; hedging against future geopolitical instability, particularly in light of concerns about Chinese aggression against Taiwan; and growing US manufacturing jobs.

Bloomberg reported last week that the legislation "risks collapsing in Congress" in the face of increased skepticism from Republicans, plus the fact that the country is facing other issues, like the seemingly never-ending problem of gun violence.

Bloomberg's report said there are concerns from some Democrats and Republicans that the White House hasn't been doing enough to rally Congress, particularly House members, around the bill. At the same time, White House officials complained that the private sector hasn't done enough in communicating to politicians the importance of passing the bill.

That complaining seemed to work, given that the Semiconductor Industry Association managed to get executives at more than 120 companies to sign Wednesday's letter. While the letter is rather short, it got to the point in the second paragraph:

While many of the signatories of the Wednesday letter represent US companies, there are a few foreign firms represented too, most notably chip foundry giants TSMC and Samsung.

The two Asian semiconductor behemoths are hoping to get their share of US chip subsidies since Taiwan-based TSMC and South Korea's Samsung are in the midst of multibillion-dollar plans to build new manufacturing plants in Arizona and Texas, respectively.

The companies, which have benefited from generous support in their home countries, spoke out in March about the need for the US to consider foreign firms when giving out chip cash. The concerns were made after Intel once proposed that the funding only be used for domestic companies, a matter that the x86 giant has since become silent on.

"Arbitrary favoritism and preferential treatment based on the location of a company's headquarters is not an effective or efficient use of the grant and ignores the reality of public ownership for most of the leading semiconductor companies," TSMC said in a statement to the US Department of Commerce in March.

In all, there are a lot of companies, both foreign and domestic, that are hoping the US will use taxpayer dollars to boost chip manufacturing and research. But we understand why it's been difficult to make the bill a priority, given several compounding issues facing the US, including gun violence, inflation, and attempts to subvert democracy, just to name a few.

Link:

Big Tech begs Congress to pass $52bn chip subsidies bill - The Register

Big companies providing technology services shouldnt be able to hide behind their consumer-facing customers when seeking compliance with bipartisan federal privacy legislation, according to a witness who spoke in favor of provisions being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

We think there are some innovations in this bill that are extremely helpful, that is, it spells out in statute what the various responsibilities are, for various entities in the internet ecosystem, said Doug Kantor, general counsel for the National Association of Convenience Stores. Some previous bills have left those things to contract. And that's just a prescription for saying the bigger company with more market power will decide who's liable and how these responsibilities get doled out.

Kantor testified before the committee Tuesday on a draft of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, which has the support of leading House Democrats and Republicans as well as Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Kantor and fellow witness John Miller, senior vice president of policy and general counsel for the Information Technology Industry Council, both acknowledged the significance and credibility of the legislative effort given the span of partisan stalemate that precedes it over issues like the preemption of state privacy laws.

The compromise bill preempts all but a few specific state laws, including one that governs biometric information in Illinois. It describes responsibilities for covered entities, including the implementation of data protection measures deemed reasonable by the Federal Trade Commission. And covered entities are described as any entity that collects, processes or transfers the dataincluding personally identifiable informationto be protected.

But those functions are pretty broad, and one prominent policy measure that fits the dynamic Kantor described is Europe and the United Kingdoms General Data Protection Regulation.

The [draft American Privacy and Data Protection Act] does not carefully distinguish between the different types of entities that use data or their obligations, Miller said. In particular, the draft does not clearly differentiate the responsibilities of covered entities, or data controllers, and service providers, or data processors. This so-called controller-processor distinction is made clear not only in the GDPR, but in all five state laws. Given the complex and variable relationships between entities using data, it is essential to clearly delineate between the roles and responsibilities of controllers and processors for privacy law to function effectively, including to apportion potential liabilities, and the draft should be modified to more clearly define these entities rather than lumping them in their obligations together.

While GDPR distinguishes between data controllersentities making decisions about how the data is usedand data processors, which have fewer responsibilities under the law, it does describe situations in which multiple entities act as joint controllers. That should sound familiar to customers of cloud service providers struggling to implement a shared responsibility model with their vendors for ensuring cybersecurity.

Kantor said, while the bill takes a significant step in preventing big tech companies from negotiating away their responsibilities in the contracting process for joint control of data, with what are often boring old brick and mortar businesses, it should be further improved.

We appreciate that you've avoided that pitfall, he said. We do think that there's more that can be done in this bill to spell out those responsibilities, so that it's clear everybody needs to comply with each part of the bill There are ways in which some of these big technology companies, as service providers, will not need to fulfill those responsibilities. And that responsibility may fall on the brick and mortar business or other consumer facing business. And that liability we don't think is right. And frankly, we don't thinkfor consumersthat they should be put in the position of not getting the rights that it looks like they should have in the bill because those service providers can hide behind the customer facing business.

Read the original here:

Big Tech Clashes with Brick and Mortar Group over Liability in Privacy Hearing - Nextgov

Last week, Apple unveiled updates to its CarPlay software available on 98% of new cars that expand its reach to the furthest ends of a cars instrument panel.

Amazon and Buick are streaming commercials showing a dad confusing his familys car for an Alexa (which is built in). The YouTube comments are harsh.

Google, too, is working on software the Android Automotive operating system (AAOS) which research firm Gartner predicts will power 70% of cars by 2028.

Whats the deal with these tech companies jumping in?

Consider this: The first time youre driven by an autonomous car something that could become normal in 20-30 years youre bewildered. The 10th time? Old news.

And, after the novelty wears off, youll check your phone and, who knows, eat a sandwich? Have sex in your automated car? Studies seem to think you will.

Mostly, of course, well likely engage in the dynamic duo of human activity: work and TV! Unlocking this time will lead to enormous economic potential for tech companies and will most directly impact:

Are cars the next battleground for data?

Where Big Tech sees huge potential in being deeply embedded in the automotive experience, others see alarms going off.

Big Techs already conquered the home and office. Its clear the car is likely next.

Business and tech news in 5 minutes or less

Read the original here:

Why Big Tech wants to be in your car so badly - The Hustle

Is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considering taking action to undermine conservative talk radio in a way that would make Facebook and Google's digital monopolies grow even bigger?

Former Trump adviser Andrew Surabianin a piece recently promoted on social media by a who's who list of conservative influencersindicated that it is.

The concern arises from a decade-old proposal, called zonecasting, which has sat on the FCC's desk since the Obama administration. The Democrat-led FCC now appears ready to formally decide on it later this year, and free speech advocates should pray the commission rejects this misguided proposal.

So, what is zonecasting?

It's a proposal that would, at least in the short term, give one company a complete monopoly over operational technology allowing radio advertisers to cut up radio media markets into smaller parts. With zonecasting, businesses, for example, could air different ads in Brooklyn than they would in the Bronx despite both currently being in the same media market.

Zonecasting is one of those proposals that may sound good from a soundbite perspective. Those who often get too caught up in theory (such as the unpragmatic "free trade at all costs" extremists who repeatedly struck President Donald Trump's ire) may think it is a great idea. But the side effects of zonecasting would be catastrophic, especially for the First Amendment.

When have monopolies ever worked out for conservatives or the public at large? Talk radio is the medium that first allowed conservatives to break into the Left's domination of the media landscape, so we should look at any government plan that would create a monopoly in this transformative industry with healthy and prudential skepticism.

Sean Hannity is doing just that. According to a post on his website, zonecasting would "potentially eliminat[e] certain types of programsand perspectivescompletely."

It's not hard to figure out why. The technology permits corporations to become increasingly selective about what parts of town their advertisements run in. That would inevitably drain radio station revenues. By taking less desirable areas directly out of their advertising plans, companies would suck millions of dollars out of the radio industry and put their savings right into their Facebook and Google advertising budgets.

What we have here is a proposal to create an artificial, government-sanctioned monopoly that would empower Big Tech to conservatives' detriment, limiting the sustainability of the talk radio programs that we hold dear. That doesn't sound conservative at all, but zonecasting's supporters aren't afraid to pretend it is. They claim the proposal will be great for stations that house conservative talk radio because the opportunity to tailor and customize commercials across town will permit broadcasters to, for the first time, compete with the "geotargeting" that rival advertisers Facebook and Twitter provide in the digital space.

This is simply not true. Advertisers flock to Facebook and Google not because they geotarget their ads, but because they allow for a one-to-one connection with users, and the advertiser can immediately see how the consumer respondswhere they click, what they buy, and how they react. Zonecasting wouldn't resemble anything close to that. If it did, then most of the broadcast industry wouldn't have already lined up in opposition to the FCC proposal.

There is nothing "free market" about zonecasting. It would create a government-sanctioned monopoly that would make it impossible for most radio stations to continue making a profit. Its supporters deny this point because the technology is voluntarybroadcasters could simply choose not to use it. But the broadcast industry has told the FCC zonecasting is voluntary in name only. Once one broadcaster adopts the technology, it will lower the rates others in the market can charge for ads.

Talk radio is the lifeblood of the conservative movement. We can't allow anti-free market policies to kill it.

Before the advent of the center-right blogosphere and cable news circuit, talk radio (aside from a handful of conservative print magazines, such as The American Spectator, Human Events, and National Review) was the only platform Republicans had to get their voices heard. And even now, with new blogs and TV networks like Fox News and Newsmax, talk radio remains one of the most popular and trusted platforms out there.

Some are already working to rid the airwaves of conservative programming after the death of Rush Limbaugh. Taking action that would weaken this medium while enriching Big Tech platformsthe new wave of conservative media suppressorswould make things even worse. Those who know and value free speech and alternative perspectives cannot and must not allow this to happen.

Chris Salcedo is a veteran television and radio broadcaster who hosts the Chris Salcedo Show on Newsmax TV. The Chris Salcedo radio show can also be heard across the country on the AM 700 KSEV APP.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Excerpt from:

Beware the FCC's New Big Tech Enrichment Plan | Opinion - Newsweek

If youve ever visited Washington, the moment you touch down in an airport, ride the Metro, turn on local TV, or look at the sides of buses, you will find yourself bombarded by messages that you may not understand, from organizations youve never heard of, talking about legislation or some other initiative you dont know. These messages, confined to either downtown D.C. or the insider political tip sheets and newsletters, arent for the ordinary American or even the ordinary Washingtonian. They are intended for members of Congress, regulatory staff, and policymakers, as part of a targeted campaign, usually from big business, to win special favors or block anything that would affect their profits.

In a new series, the Prospect will pick one of these only-in-D.C. campaigns and untangle it, so you are aware of what Americas giant lobbying engine has been doing while you were going about your life.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that the Prospect runs on the Google suite of tools. There arent a whole lot of other options if you want to run a business remotely, particularly one that involves sharing of documents and spreadsheets and other media.

This explains why we keep getting messages from Google, encouraging us to speak out about new legislation that could disrupt your ability to reach customers and run your business. Last week, we received another one of these messages, warning us that organizations representing the interests of American businesses have voiced concerns about this bill.

The three organizations cited were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Progressive Policy Institute, and Springboard, a publication of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. All three of these organizations receive funding from Google. So Googles letter was referring businesses to outside validators who were, in effect, Google.

The Google letter is part of a very robust campaign from the dominant tech platforms, which are attempting to stop two bills: the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, and the Open App Markets Act. The first bill would end self-preferencing, where tech platforms offer up their own products ahead of their competition in search results or other ways. The second would prevent mobile phone giants Google and Apple from forcing app developers to essentially pay them a large toll for access to their users.

Both bills have broad bipartisan support in Congress and both could get votes on the Senate floor as soon as this month. Thats what Big Tech is attempting to prevent, out of concern that the platforms would lose their iron grip over the online (and increasingly offline) economy.

A whopping $36.4 million has been spent on advertising against the Big Tech bills since the beginning of 2021, compared to less than $200,000 in favor. $13.7 million of that has been spent just since May 1. Most of these ads have been targeted at the home states and districts of members of Congress that the tech industry wants to flip to its side.

As the Prospect has reported, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised that the bills will get a vote this summer. But he hasnt committed to a date, and other senators are trying to get that vote delayed, so they dont have to show their hand in public and can do the tech industrys bidding in darkness. If the bills actually get a vote, its expected that they will pass.

Thats why the industry is working so hard to stop the bills and defeat the broad coalition supporting them, from progressive anti-monopoly groups to the Center for American Progress to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to conservative organizations to dozens of competitors to the giant tech companies. The industry campaign has floated a number of different arguments, from saying that the bill will boost Chinese tech companies over U.S. counterparts to saying it will force an end to Amazon Prime and other services. But the latest tactic has been to claim that Americans care more about inflation than the tech industry, and therefore nothing should be done to break Big Techs power.

The D.C. tip sheet Punchbowl News obligingly featured this message last week in its newsletter, in an ad (which looked like editorial copy) promoting a poll from the American Edge Project with the heading Voters Focused on InflationNot Breaking Up Big Tech. The American Edge Project, boasting a staff including former New Mexico governor Susana Martinez (R) and former congressman Chris Carney (D), is a dark-money project launched by Facebook.

The poll is made up of a series of leading statements, asking respondents to agree with lines like there are other, bigger problems facing the United States, we should not be focused on breaking up U.S. tech companies right now. Other poll topics include whether U.S. tech companies could fall behind China, the idea that tech regulation could harm national security, and the impact of regulation on small business.

None of these ostensibly more desirable options actually are being held up by these two bills. Its not like Democrats have some sparkling anti-inflation legislation ready to go with bipartisan support. In the realm of the plausible, creating actual competition online, as the two bills would do, is one way to potentially bring down prices.

The national-security-mongering is similarly a distraction. But as with all of Big Techs lobbying campaigns, the American Edge poll and even the talking points very obviously only exist because of Big Tech. Several of the national-security officials who have been speaking out against the legislation are on Big Techs payroll.

Anytime Big Tech tries to generate some genuine organic pushback against the bills, it has blown up in their faces. On June 2, Amazon vice president Dharmesh Mehta placed a note on their Seller Central message board, urging third-party sellers to speak to their senators against the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. Virtually all the responses from sellers took the side of the legislation, while condemning Amazon for spreading propaganda.

In another blunder, Amazon mistakenly forwarded an email to Politico in which a spokeswoman told a consultant to claim that the bills would hurt communities of color. Would it be possible for you all to push this with some of the newslettersPolitico tech, Politico Health, etc., the spokeswoman wrote. Google was caught doing something similar earlier this year.

Thats whats behind Googles little note to us at the Prospect. They are hoping to get an actual human being who isnt as clearly dependent on Google for their livelihood to mobilize against the bills. In the message, Google cited Ryan Berry of Berry Digital Solutions in Ohio, who recently met with his Senator (they dont say which one) to express concerns about the unintended consequences of anti-tech bills.

Some of the small-business testimonials that Big Tech and its allies have put forward have not panned out. A Politico investigation in March found that thousands of small businesses were listed on a directory of the Connected Commerce Council, an astroturf group opposing the bills, but 61 of the 70 businesses the reporters contacted said they were not members of the group.

Google openly states that businesses are often an influential voice in policy discussions, which of course we all know. But the ham-fisted way in which Google and its Big Tech counterparts have been fighting the legislation that means to rein in their practices has sapped some of that influence. Their targeted effort in home-district ads and policy newsletters may yet succeed. But for companies with this much money to fight regulations, they really shouldnt be as bad at this.

And just to wrap up, we have not asked our senators to oppose these bills. But thanks for the update, Google!

Are you in D.C. and have you seen a particularly odd lobbying campaign? Let us know at info[at]prospect.org.

Read this article:

Random D.C. Lobbying Campaign of the Week: The Big Tech Bills - The American Prospect

TOKYO -- The Japan Fair Trade Commission will publicizeinformation on antitrust cases against big technology companies earlierin the process, looking to gather evidencequicklyand react more effectively to a fast-changing market.

The antitrust watchdog will announce the names of investigation targets and the allegations against them toward the start of the probe when deemed necessary. The change is included in a document released Thursday on the commission's policies for an increasingly digital economy.

"We need to improve our systems and capabilities for gathering information, especially for dealing with concerns in the fast-changing digital market," Chairman Kazuyuki Furuya told reporters.

Antitrust investigation details typically are not made public until the JFTC has closed the case or penalized the company, as doing so could affect the target's business or provide an opportunityto destroy evidence.

The agency will resolve detailssuch as how and under what circumstances to make the announcements. Companies to be named under the new policy will be notified in advance.

Making this information widely available offers advantages under some circumstances, such as in recent cases involving tech giants abusing their dominant bargaining position to force vendors on e-commerce platforms to accept unfavorable terms. Publicizing such investigations could help gather information from others harmed by such conduct.

Given how swiftlybusiness models change in the tech industry, the agency also worries that the usual time-consuming process of collecting evidence behind the scenes may not be fast enough to address illegal conduct.

And unlike in cases of collusion, for example, the practices of tech companies are usually widely known, so the JFTC expects early disclosure ofinvestigations to have little effect on their operations.

Antitrust authorities in markets includingthe European Union, the U.K. and Germany already announce the names of probe targets. But the risk to companies' reputations makes it essential to have clear standards for doing so.

Announcing which companies are under investigation "would have a major impact on their activity, since the public would see it as a sign that they are likely guilty," said Yasuo Daito, a Japanese attorney and expert on antitrust law. "We should be extremely careful in choosing which cases to make public."

The commission also will seekexternal input on merger and acquisition cases, especially in the tech sector, at an earlier stage when necessary. Tech-related companies make up an increasing portion of the roughly 300 such cases screened by the JFTC yearly. The agency wants a better picture of the industry by hearing a wide range of opinions.

As part of this shift, the JFTC has begun seeking outside opinions on proposed acquisitions by Microsoft and Google.

The JFTC also will use information gained from surveys on antitrust issues in case reviews, with approval from their sources.

Read the original post:

Big Tech targets to be named at start of Japan antitrust probes - Nikkei Asia

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans are set to roll out a measure that would block Big Tech companies from hosting senior Chinese Communist Party officials on their social media platforms.

House Republican Study Committee member Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., is leading the initiative, along with committee Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., committee National Security and Foreign Affairs Chairman Joe Wilson, R-S.C., and co-sponsor Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., in an effort to "hold China and Big Tech accountable."

The "China Social Media Reciprocity Act" would impose sanctions prohibiting providers of social media platforms to provide accounts to any individuals involved in the Chinese Communist Party, unless the president can certify to Congress that the government of China and the CCP have "verifiably removed prohibitions on officials of the U.S. government from accessing, using, or participating in social media platforms in China."

The bill would "prohibit the provision of services by social media platforms to individuals and entities on the Specially Designated Nations List and certain officials and other individuals and entities of the Peoples Republic of China."

'NO SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR TERRORISTS': HOUSE GOP PUSHES TO BLOCK SANCTIONED FOREIGN LEADERS FROM PLATFORMS

The bill covers all U.S.-owned social media companies.

Rep. Brian Mast speaks at a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on Sept. 20, 2019. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

In order to gain access to U.S. social media platforms and accounts, the bill would require the Chinese government to remove all forms of censorship that prohibit persons in China from accessing social media platforms or viewing content generated by U.S. government officials and U.S. persons on Chinas social media platforms, a committee aide told Fox News.

The presidents ability to waive the bill would sunset in two years, according to the committee, and would give Congress "the final say on whether or not China has met the standard requirement to lift prohibition."

The bill would apply to members of Chinas State Council, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, State Security, Justice, Public Security, and other ministries; as well as high ranking officials of other agencies.

"Freedom always wins over tyranny, and the Chinese Communist Party knows it. Thats why theyve taken drastic steps to keep American ideas off of their social platforms," Mast told Fox News. "This bill is about leveling the playing field."

Mast added: "Chinese officials should not be allowed to spew propaganda on U.S.-based social media sites while actively blocking the free flow of ideas on their own sites."

TWITTER EXPANDS LABELS TO G7 STATE-AFFILIATED ACCOUNTS, COUNTRIES ACCUSED OF UNDERMINING RULES

A committee aide told Fox News that Chinese government officials, and senior leaders of the CCP "have full freedom tase American social media platforms to further their propaganda," while those same social media platforms are "often banned in China."

"China bans its own citizens from using Twitter and Facebook, but Chinese Communist Party officials still use those platforms to push their propaganda abroad," Banks told Fox News, adding that Big Tech "has enthusiastically censored conservative politicians in America, but refused to lift a finger against Communist Party officials whove spread actual COVID disinformation and even genocide denial on their platforms."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Jim Banks hold a press conference on Capitol Hill, June 9, 2022. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

"Theres a staggering amount of hypocrisy from all involved," Banks told Fox News. "The Republican Study Committee and my colleague Brian Masts bill would force Big Tech to counter Chinas disinformation and put the US back on an equal footing by using sanctions law to prohibit all Communist officials from US social media until they lift their ban on US social media."

Tiffany, an original co-sponsor of the legislation, told Fox News that Big Tech companies have been a propaganda machine for the Chinese Communist Party and even the Taliban yet these same platforms routinely censor American conservatives, and even the investigative journalism of major newspapers."

"Something is very wrong with this picture," Tiffany said. "If a foreign despot refuses to allow free and unfettered access to American social media platforms, then that dictator and his cronies should be deplatformed, period."

The legislation comes after Republicans on the panel last year proposed legislation that would expand U.S. sanctions law to prohibit social media companies from allowing foreign individuals or entities sanctioned for terrorism from using their platforms.

CHINA PROPAGANDA SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN REACHES OTHER COUNTRIES, AGAIN BLAMES US FOR COVID

That bill, the "No Social Media Accounts for Terrorists or State Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2021," first reported by Fox News, would clarify existing sanctions law by giving the president authority to sanction the "provision of services," including the provision and maintenance of accounts, by social media platforms to foreign individuals or entities sanctioned for terrorism, and senior officials of state sponsors of terrorism.

Icons of WhatsApp, Messenger, YouTube, Instagram and other apps. (Muhammed Selim Korkutata/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images, File)

The social media platforms also included Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

A congressional aide explained to Fox News that banks and U.S. insurance companies are not allowed to provide accounts to sanctioned individuals or entities, but due to the current loophole in sanctions law, social media companies are allowed to provide the accounts because it is related to information.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The aide said the legislation seeks to "require the president to implement regulation that will treat social media platforms just like the bank and insurance companiesthey cannot provide a service to a sanctioned individual or entity."

An aide told Fox News that bill received 47 co-sponsors, but has not yet been brought to the floor of the House of Representatives for consideration.

Brooke Singman is a Fox News Digital politics reporter. You can reach her at Brooke.Singman@Fox.com or @BrookeSingman on Twitter.

Read the original:

House Republican measure would block Big Tech companies from hosting CCP officials on platforms - Fox News