Category Archives: Big Tech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See more here:

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

Nastassia Samal/iStock via Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Head-to-Head Comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original post:

Just Another Manic Monday Big Tech Weak? - TheStreet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATCH| How small startups compete with the big guns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Reuters.

Read the rest here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original:

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