Category Archives: Big Tech

Earlier this week enterprise software giant Oracle shocked the healthcare IT world when it announced its plans to buy one of the leading EHR systems Cerner for $28.3 billion. Thenews puts Oracle on the map as a potential major player in the health technology world.

This was a deal that no one saw coming. Beyond that, I would say it puts Oracle quietly in the healthcare tech space for the first time, Paddy Padmanabhan, CEO of Damo Consulting, told HIMSSTV.

Oracle has a presence through its ER pay products and its database offerings, and so on, but this is the first time they are getting into the clinical software space.And they are doing that with the biggest acquisition by far that they have done, but also the biggest acquisition of this year in tech, and in general one of the biggest acquisitions weve seen in the tech space in sometime.

Its not the first time big tech has entered the healthcare arena. Over the last several years the FANNG companies have invested in the space. For example, Google developed an EHR search tool called Care Studios, Amazon began to offervirtual care services and Appledeveloped an FDA-clearedECG algorithm for its Watch.

There is a new player in town, and that player has announced their presence in a very loud and compelling way. But lets also not forget that big tech has had its own set of challenges in the last year.

"A couple of them actually took a step back, and the most obvious one is Google, where David Feinberg used to work before taking on the role of CEO at Cerner.And Google effectively shut down its healthcare business.There isnt a healthcare business. Apple also had some setbacks in the primary care business they were launching, Padmanabhan said.

"Amazon is pressing forward.They seem to have consolidated all of their healthcare initiatives under one leader. They are getting directly into the primary care space, which is something that other tech firms have avoided. That is getting into the healthcare business, because selling healthcare technology and selling healthcare services are two entirely different things. Microsoft has had the most steady growth, if you look at all of these tech firms.

The news also brings to mind another major big tech acquisition of a healthcare company.

It has already happened and will continue. Microsofts acquisition of Nuance is one example, Lee Shapiro, cofounder and managing partner at 7wireVentures, wrote in an email to MobiHealthNews.

Electronic health records and billing systems are pervasive in the industry, so the next frontier will be on leveraging the data that comes from these systems to improve health. Oracle, with its experience in life sciences, is well situated to help drive some of these learnings. There are other big-tech players that have also made progress in healthcare that I expect will also be on the acquisition trail.

There is also a question of this acquisition making Oracle a competitor to Nuance, a voice recognition and artificial intelligence technology. In the acquisition announcement, Larry Ellison, Oracles chief technology officer, brought up potential new capabilities in voice recognition.

With this acquisition, Oracles corporate mission expands to assume the responsibility to provide our overworked medical professionals with a new generation of easier-to-use digital tools that enable access to information via a hands-free voice interface to secure cloud applications, Ellison said in the press release announcing the news.

This new generation of medical information systems promises to lower the administrative workload burdening our medical professionals, improve patient privacy and outcomes, and lower overall healthcare costs.

However, voice recognition isnt something often associated with Oracle.

When we talk about voice recognition technology, Oracle is not the first name that comes to mind. There will be many questions that come up in the months to unfold, Padmanabhan said.

There are still a lot of unknowns about what the acquisition will mean for the industry, but in the meantime the other major tech players will be watching.

Now they are going to have to contend with this really big player, and one that has quite a dominant position through just one single transaction, Padmanabhan said. So it is going to put everyone on notice to say the least.

Here is the original post:

What Oracle's acquisition of Cerner could mean for big tech in health - Mobihealth News

Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, at the Bitcoin 2021 conference in Miami, Florida, on June 5, 2021.

Eva Marie Uzcategui | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Cryptocurrencies have had yet another wild year.

Bitcoin, the world's largest digital asset, has seen a roughly 65% gain since January with some ten to twenty percent swings in between. It brought in a crop of new, individual investors along the way as payment giants like PayPal started letting users trade crypto. More billionaires and institutional investors dove in to help legitimize the asset class.

The industry now sprawls well beyond bitcoin. NFTs, blockchain-based videogames and "Web3" are top of executives' minds heading into next year. Regulation remains as the biggest uncertainty.

Here's a look at what some of the industry's most influential executives had to say.

The 29-year-old founder and CEO told CNBC he doesn't expect legislative action to be the immediate answer for "regulatory clarity." Especially since it's "pretty hard right now to get things through Congress."

It's just as likely to be cobbled together from a series of statements, enforcement actions, and "other indications" to set the guardrails," Bankman-Fried said.

The CEO is still bullish on Solana as an alternative to Ethereum. But it's possible that a new blockchain pops up as the "Holy Grail" that would eventually be able to host a million transactions per second. Right now, he said there are "very few even trying to get that point."

"There will be substantial fleshing out of the crypto regulatory systems over the next few years."

"Most banks have effectively decided internally that they will be entering the crypto ecosystem. But how and when they do it is going to depend a lot on the details of regulatory structure."

"There's enormous worry about stablecoins right now. But it's pretty straightforward to address. You have attestations, or you have an audit from a regulator."

"The thing that people are worried about with stablecoins is are they stable? If you can address that, you've addressed most of the worries about it from a customer protection and a systemic risk perspective. It's not that hard to do. So I'm cautiously optimistic that that's where we're going."

Jeremy Allaire, Co-Founder and CEO, Circle

David A. Grogan | CNBC

The CEO of Circle is calling for more use of dollar-pegged cryptocurrencies, or stablecoins, by e-commerce firms, consumers and financial institutions. Circle, which is set to go public via SPAC, operates its own stablecoin called USDC.

Allaire expects to see more institutional adoption and celebrity trendsetters lending their brands to crypto through NFTs. DAOs, which rely on crowdfunding, may even "challenge venture capital investors on some of the largest and hottest deals in crypto," he said.

The biggest threat? "Incoherent and inconsistent, hastily formed regulations and policy," Allaire said.

"Even in an environment where the Fed raises interest rates, investors and businesses will be hungry for the high-yield opportunities offered through digital assets. So expect to see institutional adoption of digital assets balloon directly, through ETFs, or custom yield-generating products."

"There is bipartisan recognition that blockchain and crypto technologies represent a U.S. competitive advantage, especially if properly regulated, so new legislation and laws will come quicker than many people expect."

"In 2022 stablecoin adoption will continue its upward trajectory. We believe that dollars on the internet will soon be as efficient and widely available as text messages and email."

Brian Brooks, chief executive officer of Bitfury Group Ltd., speaks during a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2021.

Stefani Reynolds | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Brian Brooks, the former Acting Comptroller of the Currency, said there's now consensus among lawmakers in Washington that crypto is here to stay. He expects more blockbuster funding rounds after a record 2021, continued mainstream understanding of the crypto space.

For example, not all "crypto" are currencies, or meant to act like currencies, he said.

"Retail adoption is there and will continue to accelerate, but for those established Wall Street firms and other financial services companies that are not already involved in the crypto ecosystem, it is a matter of "when" not "if".

"The need for clear regulatory action that creates a sustainable framework to allow crypto and Web 3 to grow in the United States will reach its tipping point."

"The level of activity and innovation occurring in the space is too great to ignore, as is the risk to American competitiveness in technology and capital markets."

Chad Cascarilla, CEO of Paxos.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

Paxos is the company powering PayPal's crypto offering behind the scenes. CEO Charles Cascarilla also expects more action in the stablecoin market. His company offers its own dollar-pegged coin, USDP. The CEO is one of many warning that the U.S. has a lot to lose if it gets regulation wrong.

"Big tech and finance players like Venmo, Interactive Brokers and Mercado Libre entered crypto in 2021. There will be even more and bigger players joining the onslaught next year."

"2022 is the year of the stablecoin. Consumer wallets enabled stablecoins for the first time this year. Money is a product and it needs to be updated for how people live today. Regulated stablecoins like USDP are the answer."

"Regulatory clarity, consistency and certainty will foster Safe blockchain innovation in the US. This technology presents many opportunities for American market primacy in the long-term if we get this right, and there are many risks if we get it wrong."

This year marked an industry milestone of the first futures-based bitcoin ETF. But Grayscale and others in the industry are looking to take that a step further.

It's looking to convert the world's largest bitcoin trust, GBTC, into an ETF and CEO Michael Sonnenshein is optimistic for an approval in 2022. He's also seeing investor interest beyond bitcoin, and "tension" between Big Tech and start-ups.

"We're entering into 2022 without a [spot] Bitcoin ETF, but believe that in the coming year the SEC and other regulators will continue to dig in on this issue. We remain optimistic that they will allow for an even playing field -- and give investors the optionality between both spot and futures-based ETF products for getting exposure."

"This was certainly a year when we thought people were diversifying beyond Bitcoin and Ether. We're starting to see that investors are going to specific protocols and projects, and an increasing mindshare among investors that the universe of crypto assets is only broadening."

"There will be an expanded conversation around the tension between some of these centralized platforms that are today managed by social media and e-commerce giants, and established tech companies versus some of these up and coming decentralized platforms."

Robinhood started as a stock-trading start-up. But in its second quarter as a public company, it got more than half of total revenue from crypto trades. Of that, more than 60% came from Dogecoin transactions. As the asset class becomes more important to the company's bottom line, executives have said they're moving slowly on adding new assets to the platform, until there's more regulatory clarity.

"2021 was the year crypto went mainstream."

"Whether through NFTs or their token of choice, more people engaged in crypto in what was a breakout year."

"Crypto has long had a HODL mentality, and that extended to NFTs in 2021 where JPGs replaced photos all across social media. The infrastructure investment from 2017 is ready for primetime, with multiple layer L1s and L2 platforms flourishing in 2021. With more crypto enthusiasts to cater to, 2022 will see companies focus more on design and user experience to ease that transition from web 2 to web 3, and we'll continue to see major brands continuing to get involved."

If you've ever perused crypto Twitter, you probably know "Pomp." With more than 1 million followers, the investor is known for his bullish calls on bitcoin and said the asset has transitioned from a contrarian idea, to a "consensus idea on Wall Street in 2021." He expects more adoption next year from legacy companies buying bitcoin for their balance sheets, and eventually building dedicated business units.

Pompliano also highlighted moves in the bitcoin mining industry after China made the activity illegal, bitcoin's potential for global payments, and a "brain drain" underway from Big Tech and Wall Street.

"Bitcoin mining transitioned from a largely international activity to a US-centric activity in 2021. It would not surprise me to see new all-time highs in the bitcoin hash rate in 2022, along with continued market share growth for the US as a whole, along with Texas as a single state."

"We saw a major social media platform, Twitter, embrace the Lightning Network for payments in 2021 via Strike's API (I'm an investor). We also saw a nation state, El Salvador, embrace the Lightning Network for payments. We should expect multiple large Fortune 500 companies to embrace the Lightning Network in 2022 for payments."

"The brain drain from legacy technology and finance industry will continue. Young people, and increasingly the most skilled people, want to focus their talents on the industry where they can have the greatest impact. Crypto has been growing at an incredible rate, both in terms of new jobs, new companies, funding, economic value created, etc. This transition has only begun and will likely accelerate in 2022."

While this was a busy year for the crypto trade association in DC, "2022 is going to be way busier," Bond said. She also expects the SEC to come out with more enforcement actions.

"The Biden administration has been in office for a year. We're now presented with a window where something can get done on a bipartisan basis. And that will advance the industry and it will provide guardrails for market integrity and consumer protection."

"While final legislation may not actually take place, take effect in 2022. I think the direction of travel is going to be clear, and what we're doing in 2022 is setting the stage for 2023, 2024 and beyond."

"The balance is going to be one finding a policy framework in which the industry can flourish and the U.S. can benefit where consumers can also be protected."

The crypto exchange, founded by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, climbed to a $7 billion valuation this year and is among the dozens with a bitcoin ETF application in the works. Its COO, Noah Perlman, sees crypto payments going mainstream, more non-tech companies embracing the Metaverse, and more women jumping into a male-dominated market.

"More retail companies with household names will expand their crypto offerings, further legitimizing digital currencies as a form of payment and as an asset. Credit card companies such as Mastercard and Visa that offer crypto rewards will become more prevalent, which will make investing in digital assets as easy as swiping your card at a store."

"It's no surprise to see tech giants Apple, Meta, Snap, Alphabet, and Microsoft build out their Metatverse ecosystem, but we expect this trend will target other industries as we've seen with Nike's acquisition of RTFKT and Adidas launching an NFT collection called "Into the Metaverse".

"The profile of the typical crypto investor will change significantly in 2022. Previously, the typical crypto investor was a man in his 30s making more than $100,000 per year. We already saw some significant demographic shifts in the past year. According to Gemini's 2021 State of the US Crypto Report, 63 percent of U.S. adults are crypto-curious, meaning they don't yet own crypto but report interest in learning more or holding digital assets soon."

"We'll see an approval for a spot bitcoin ETF most likely in H1."

Ethereum has had a break-out year but new, alternative blockchains are popping up as platforms to build NFTs and other apps. Avalanche is among the new challengers to Ethereum. The president of Ava Labs, a former hedge fund trader, predicts a shake out of "speculative" assets, and a "brain drain" as software developers leave Big Tech in search of next wave of computing. He also expects bitcoin's market dominance to keep declining.

"We will continue to see inflows into smart contract platforms, DeFi, Gaming and metaverse. The winners will be the ones with strong growth of users, use cases and transaction activity. Speculative assets with no network effects will be the losers."

"BTC still has strong interest from both institutional and retail investors. Let's not forget that it has had a 10 year lead time compared to other platforms so it still has the biggest brand name out there. On the other hand, it's dominance over the crypto market is declining and will continue to do so."

"While these smart contracts platforms do compete with each other for developers, the real competition is with traditional web 2.0 companies like Google and Facebook. We are seeing tremendous interest from web 2.0 developers who want to now build on decentralized systems because they find web 3.0 to be a lot more creative and exciting."

View original post here:

What the top crypto execs predict for the industry in 2022: Regulation and a Big Tech 'brain drain' - CNBC

We live in an era of big promises but results that fall far short of expectations. Take the failed construction startup Katerra. Founded in 2015, the company claimed it would use the approaches of digital and mass production industries, including glued and laminated mass timber products and modular design, to disrupt the construction industry, long seen as a bastion of backward, inefficient craft labor. Many people enthusiastically bought into this vision. Over six years, the company raised $3 billion, including $2 billion from Japanese telecom and investment giant SoftBank Group.

In 2021, the global construction industry had a market size of about $11.5 trillion. Any company that truly disrupted and claimed a large chunk of such a huge market would be one of the largest winners in industrial history. But Katerra was not to be that company. It failed for many reasons, including because it hubristically underestimated the complexity of construction. It went belly-up in June 2021.

Journalism and popular culture today are full of similarly large promises around a slew of other emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, the sharing economy and delivery apps, AI for healthcare, fusion energy, nanotechnology, bio-electronics of the Theranos kind, virtual reality, augmented reality, commercial drones, domestic robots, blockchain, the Internet of Things, asteroid mining, and smart homes. Yet, so far at least, the hype around these technologies far outweighs the creation of successful products and services and growing markets for them.

There is plenty of countervailing evidence that should lead us to question the dramatic claims made of these technologies and the health of an economy so deeply and highly invested in the tech sector. Yet the many setbacks and outright failures rarely lead industry leaders and boosters to reflect, instead of merely upping the promises.

Its now very well known among those who follow the economics of technology that the United States and other industrial nations have experienced pronounced low productivity growth since 2004, precisely the period during which we have heard some of the most exaggerated claims about some of the technologies listed above. Moreover, one of us (Funk) has published several articles demonstrating a gap between hype and reality: One such piece, for example, showed that artificial intelligence technologies are unlikely to produce significant productivity changes soon and will more likely give birth to slow incremental improvements over decades. Another showed that annual and cumulative losses for todays startups are far higher than those of previous decades, suggesting big problems in venture capital. If these new technologies are so great, why cant they make money?

More recently, however, we have found that the gap between promises and reality become even clearer when we compare much-hyped technologies of the past decade to new technologies of previous decades that did lead to significant change. To show just how ridiculous recent claims are, we gathered data on the revenues of new technologies from previous decades, with an emphasis on new ones that are purportedly behind the so-called digital transformation of companies, factories, homes, and roads. We find a fairly radical disconnect between newer technologies and what came before.

Most observers would consider 1950s computing and their electronic components, transistors, and integrated circuits to represent the beginning of the digital transformation. Mainframe computers began to have an impact in the 1950s and 1960s, minicomputers and robots in the 1960s and 1970s, and personal computers in the 1970s and 1980s, with packaged software for them not far behind. Behind these new computers were rapid improvements in microprocessors (from the late 1960s), memory (from the early 1970s), and graphic processors (from the early 1980s). These changes developed enormous markets. In 1989, for example, 21 million PCs were sold at an average of about $3,000 each for a total market of $63 billion ($132 billion in 2020 dollars).

Bigger changes began to occur in the 1990s as networking equipment enabled these computers to be connected both within and between companies, largely based on rapid improvements in fiber optics. The commercial internet was born. Construction of the internet accelerated, giving us e-commerce, enterprise software such as customer relationship management and manufacturing resource planning, and widespread use of mobile phones.

These changes also quickly led to large markets. E-commerce, internet hardware, and software, and mobile service revenues had reached $446 billion, $315 billion, $282 billion, and $230 billion respectively by 2000 (1998 for mobile services), all in 2020 dollars to simplify comparisons to subsequent decades. Internet-connected personal computers also likely led to significant economic growth, with a period of high productivity gains between 1994 and 2004 that outpaced both the period from 1970 and 2004 and the period between 2004 and the present.

The 2000s were the beginning of rapid growth for smartphones, cloud computing, online advertising, social networking, and e-books. Cloud computing had global revenues of $127 billion by 2010 (also in 2020 dollars), and online advertising of $81 billion by 2010. Facebook had 550 million users by the end of 2010. (Some of this growth accelerated during the end of the 2000s and thus the quoted figures are for a year after 2010.) The iPhone was introduced in 2007, and the App Store and Android phones followed in 2008. The global revenues for smartphonesreached $293 billion by 2012, pushing more people to mobile web browsing, navigation services, and a smattering of new apps.

We see something shifting in the 2010s, which were a decade of growing markets for existing technologies, but less so for new ones. Although revenues for e-commerce, cloud computing, smartphones, online advertising, and other technologies continued to grow, only one category of new technology had achieved $50 billion in sales by 2020. That was video streaming, which is more applicable to consumers than to corporate digital transformation efforts. (See the table below.) The next closest was big data/algorithms with $46 billion, tablet computers with $40 billion (the iPad introduced in 2010), and OLED displays with $32 billion in revenues; the latter is also not usually considered part of corporate digital transformation efforts.

Artificial intelligence, virtual reality, augmented reality, commercial drones, smart homes, and blockchain have even smaller markets. Even the Internet of Things had only reached 20% of the number of connected devices projected in 2012 for 2020 and most of those devices were smartphones. To add insult to injury, many hyped startups in these sectors, such as Uber, Lyft, Palantir, Airbnb, Bloom Energy, Nutanix, and Snap have cumulative losses of more than $3 billion each, the amount Amazon had at its peak; they are still unprofitable, and their total cumulative losses are $58 billion and rising.

[Market size of large current high-tech categories. Data from assorted market research reports; see links above.]

Again, contrast these market sizes with what came before: E-commerce, which was launched with the commercialized internet in the early 1990s, had reached $446 billion (in 2020 dollars) less than a decade later. Talk of smart homes began in earnest around the year 2000 but the U.S. market is only $20 billion today. OLEDs were first used in phones in 2007, yet their revenues were only $46 billion in 2020 and the first VR headset was released in 1991, yet its revenues are only $16 billion.

Big data and its successor, AI, are particularly disappointing because they are the technologies that were supposed to bring us the productivity improvements necessary for an accelerating digital transformation. Not only are their market sizes still small, but they have been heavily criticized for both impacting low-income and minority groups and for failing to deliver technically. Those concerns indicate that their impact on productivity growth might be even smaller than their market sizes suggest.

Without a strong base of growth in the 2010s, it is unlikely the newest technologies will achieve high market sizes by 2030.

Why is the slow growth in new technologies in the 2010s a problem? Among other reasons, because their future growth depends on the base that was established for them in the 2010s, and this base remains surprisingly weak. E-commerce, enterprise software, online advertising, social networking, and cloud computing now have huge markets because large bases for them were established decades ago in the 1990s and the 2000s, and as a result exponential growth has built from this large base. But without a strong base of growth in the 2010s, it is unlikely the newest technologies will achieve high market sizes by 2030, and thus they cannot have a big impact on productivity by then. This is simply how exponential growth works.

Explaining why the growth in new technologies was slow during the 2010s is a more complex and challenging question, one that must be left to other articles. The point we wish to make here is that digital transformation has not achieved what many had expected by 2020 and thus productivity improvements will likely take much longer to emerge than techno-optimists have thought they would take. Comparing market sizes between newer and older technologies adds to the pile of evidence suggesting that our current tech industry is not what its boosters claim it is. If we want higher productivity growth, we need to develop different ways of thinking, but first and most of all we must come to grips with the bleak realities of our era, with all of its big promises that simply havent delivered.

Jeffrey Funk is a consultant and a former professor at the National University of Singapore and Pennsylvania State University. Lee Vinsel is an assistant professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech University and a cofounder of The Maintainers.

Link:

We're living in an age of big tech promises and small results - Fast Company

After a year that made the terms WFH (work from home) and metaverse instantly recognisable for many people, there are a new set of technological trends headed this way for 2022. Here's a selection of how technology may change lives in the coming year:

Meatless meat

Meat alternatives have become common in an increasing number of US households, thanks in part to Beyond Meat and Impossible Food plant-based products that come far closer to the texture and flavour of red meat. As the products have improved and the prices edged downward, demand has been boosted by concern about the environment: raising animals for food is responsible for a whopping 14.5 per cent of human-linked greenhouse gas emissions, according to UN data. The global market for plant-based meats is expected to be worth $35 billion in 2027 -- up from $13.5 billion in 2020, thanks in part to expansion beyond the United States, according to a report from Research and Markets.

"2022 will be the crowning year of food made from plant-based proteins," said David Bchiri, president of US consulting firm Fabernovel. "The products are mature and good. They're going to become mainstream."

Web 3.0 and crypto

The internet's first phase was the creation of websites and blogs, which allowed the emergence of companies like Yahoo, eBay, or Amazon. The next iteration was Web 2.0, defined by social media and user-generated content on sites like Facebook and YouTube.These platforms "get the money and control it, they let you on their platform," summarised Benedict Evans, an independent analyst specializing in Silicon Valley. So, is Web 3.0 coming? In this iteration, "users, creators and developers would have stakes and votes" in a platform in much the way cooperative works,

Evans said on his "Another Podcast."Such a revolutionary step could be made possible by blockchain technology, where computer programs run on networks of thousands or millions of computers. So far, blockchain has enabled the rise of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, and more recently, the unique digital objects such as drawings or animations called NFTs. "We talk a lot about decentralized finance, but I think that in 2022 we will see more localized use cases, which will enter everyday life," said Bchiri of consulting firm Fabernovel.

As highly-volatile digital monies like bitcoin have hit record high values in 2021, a huge range of players has gotten into the game including versions launched by the cities of Miami and New York.

Ransomware, everywhere

The spike toward record ransomware attacks and data leaks in 2021 looks likely to spill over into the coming year. Cyber-extortion heists break into a victim's network to encrypt data, then demand a ransom, typically paid via cryptocurrency in exchange to unlock it. A confluence of factors has fueled the trend, including the booming value of cryptocurrencies, victims' willingness to pay and the difficulty authorities have in catching attackers. Cybersecurity company SonicWall wrote in late October: "With 495 million ransomware attacks logged by the company this year to date, 2021 will be the most costly and dangerous year on record. "

"When I think about 2022, the thing that's top of mind for me and for my colleagues continues to be ransomware. It's simply too lucrative," wrote Sandra Joyce, executive vice president and head of global intelligence at cybersecurity firm Mandiant.

Big Tech regulation?

It's difficult to say if 2022 is the year Big Tech will finally be hit with significant new rules, but a series of regulatory and legal threats launched in 2021 will provoke major battles. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit against Facebook represents a genuine threat to the social media giant, though a court has already dismissed the case once. More lawsuits and a federal investigation -- and maybe even finally new laws -- are possible in the wake of the damning whistleblower leaks showing Facebook executives knew its sites could cause harm. Some critics say the firm's major push into realizing the metaverse -- a virtual reality version of the internet -- is an effort to change the subject after years of criticism.

Apple dodged a bullet in 2021 when a US federal court said Fortnite maker Epic Games failed to show the iPhone giant held an illegal monopoly, but the firm was still ordered to loosen control over its App Store. Both sides have appealed. New regulations may come sooner in the EU as it pushes through new laws, such as the Digital Services Act which would create much stricter oversight of harmful and illegal content on platforms like Facebook.

See the article here:

Meatless meat, Web 3.0 and Big Tech battles: Tech trends we look forward to in 2022 - The Daily Star

With help from Rebecca Kern, John Hendel and Mark Scott

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Morning Tech wont publish from Friday, Dec. 24-Friday, Dec. 31. Well be back on our normal schedule on Monday, Jan. 3.

Editors Note: Morning Tech is a free version of POLITICO Pro Technology's morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 6 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the days biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro.

Life after BBB: Here are the tech and telecom provisions that could survive the wreckage of the Build Back Better Act, congressional aides told us amid Sundays chaos.

Looking to the new year: The digital ads industrys major trade group wants to get more vocal, and has hired an Amazon public policy executive to help.

Amazons ties to FBI and DOJ: The e-commerce giant has increasingly tipped off the Justice Department to investigate alleged fraud by the sellers using its platform and even Amazons own employees.

HAPPY MONDAY AND WELCOME TO MORNING TECH! Im your guest host, Emily Birnbaum. Ill be filling in during this unexpectedly busy week drop me a line if theres something you think we should cover before Christmas!

You can reach out via @birnbaum_e or [emailprotected]. Got an event for our calendar? Send details to [emailprotected]. Anything else? Team info below. And dont forget: Add @MorningTech and @PoliticoPro on Twitter.

A message from Save Our Standards:

Technical standards like 5G and Wi-Fi have the power to transform industries, fuel the economy, and create high-quality jobs. But that only happens if owners of patents essential to standards honor their commitments to license all innovators to use those patents on fair and reasonable terms. A new draft Administration statement restores the balance vital to standards adoption and job creation. Support the Administration to promote American manufacturing and limit product bans on standard-essential patents.

WHATS LEFT FOR TECH Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) stunned the White House and sent many in Washington scrambling on Sunday by crushing Democrats chances of passing the House version of President Joe Bidens massive social spending bill. Now Senate Democrats are scheming about what elements might survive if they can assemble a more Manchin-friendly bill. Among the possibilities for the bills tech provisions:

FTCs new privacy bureau: Democrats are hopeful they can still use a pared-down legislative package to provide $500 million for creating an Federal Trade Commission data privacy bureau, one senior aide told MT on Sunday.

Though some Republicans have warned against an expansion of the agencys authority especially under Bidens FTC chair, Lina Khan lawmakers have shown some bipartisan interest in firming up the FTCs ability to respond to concerns like data breaches and tech companies privacy practices. Manchin has not weighed in publicly on the issue, but he has previously supported privacy legislation.

$1 billion for antitrust enforcement: The BBB called for splitting an influx of antitrust funding evenly between the Justice Department and the FTC. Both agencies are cash-strapped but are pursuing major cases against Google and Facebook, with suits against Apple and Amazon under consideration.

Another senior Democratic aide told MT on Sunday that its very likely that upcoming packages including the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, which has passed the Senate and passed out of committee in the House will include additional funds for the agencies, though that figure may not be $1 billion.

FTC penalty authority: The commission has long sought the ability to fine companies that deceive consumers by lying about their privacy or data security practices. A provision granting this authority was tucked into the House bill, though the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and top Republicans like Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi oppose it. Its unlikely that the civil penalty authority will make it through any future vehicle amid intensifying opposition.

Broadband investments: The House-passed bill included $1.15 billion for broadband internet, a pot of money meant to supplement the $65 billion in broadband spending included in the bipartisan infrastructure law signed by Biden this year. The BBBs proposals included $300 million for bolstering remote-learning subsidies and a $280 million pilot program on urban broadband affordability. Manchin has not stated a clear position on these provisions.

$470 million to upgrade 911 call centers: Democrats urgently hope to upgrade the countrys 911 system for the digital age. This money in the BBB a fraction of the billions lawmakers originally proposed would enable emergency call centers to receive text messages, video and photos, not just phone calls. Manchin has not weighed in on this proposal, either.

FIRST IN MT: A NEW CHAPTER FOR IAB The Interactive Advertising Bureau, a massive trade group that represents companies on all sides of the digital ads ecosystem, is about to get a whole lot more involved in tech policy discussions on Capitol Hill.

IAB has tapped Lartease Tiffith, an Amazon public policy executive and former aide to Vice President Kamala Harris, to lead its policy shop. And he plans to make the groups presence known.

IABs challenges: The group has faced serious disagreements among its roughly 700 members, who include both the big tech platforms such as Google, Meta and Amazon as well as smaller publishers and brands that feel exploited by those companies control over the digital ads ecosystem. IAB too often advocates on behalf of the biggest tech companies.

Tiffith believes it will be his job to find consensus among IABs diverse membership, he said in an interview. His top priorities include lobbying for federal privacy legislation that preempts state laws and against digital services taxes. The digital advertising ecosystem is one that our country relies on, Tiffith said.

He added that he is absolutely in touch with the vice president and her close aides, and said he intends to advocate particularly on behalf of the small- and medium-sized businesses that benefit from digital ads. I do think there will be some opportunities to be more vocal about what we do and dont do, Tiffith said. We want to make sure people know where IAB stands.

What IABs CEO says: Chief executive David Cohen said the trade group tries to not focus itself on Google or Meta or Amazon or anyone. We are industry-focused. Thats why it has stayed out of the congressional antitrust battles the tech giants are facing so far, though Cohen said IAB reserves the right to change our perspective on that.

If there are individual member companies doing things that are harmful to the industry at large there are other forums, like courts and judicial systems, that would be better suited than a trade association to weigh in on that, Cohen said.

AMAZONS TIES TO THE FEDS: The federal government has indicted 20 people for crimes related to Amazon in the past year and a half a number that exceeds indictments related to other comparably large retail and logistics companies like Walmart and FedEx, according to a POLITICO report from your host and Daniel Lippman. In many of those cases, Amazon either tipped off the government or cooperated closely with the investigations, according to public disclosures. The crimes relate to a range of issues including fraud and counterfeits.

While federal officials have discretion over which criminal cases they choose to pursue, Amazon has invested significant resources into pushing prosecutors and investigators to take on cases it wants them tos.

And the company appears to be getting results. This looks like a huge and powerful company attempting to generate goodwill and appear to be cooperative with the government, said J. Kelly Strader, an academic focused on how companies deal with the government when they handle white-collar crime.

Amazons response: Amazon says its referrals to law enforcement show that it is taking forceful action against criminal activity.

We take our responsibility seriously to protect our customers and selling partners from fraud and abuse, said Amazon spokesperson Jodi Seth. We are proud of the industry-leading investments weve made in technology and human expertise to prevent criminal activity and deter bad actors.

Amazons revolving door: As part of its efforts to get closer to the feds, Amazon has hired people with deep ties to federal law enforcement. The company employs at least 21 former federal prosecutors and at least 49 former FBI employees, according to a review of LinkedIn pages of current Amazon employees.

TODAY: LIGHTBOX TO UNVEIL BROADBAND MAPPING TOOLS LightBox, a company known for crunching reams of real estate data, is today announcing what it is calling a SmartFabric, a newly enriched and customizable map of location data that it hopes states will tap to guide their broadband funding decisions.

We have a state that is already signed up, LightBox CEO Eric Frank told John, though he declined to say which state. They've also asked us to do all the work so were actually collecting the ISP data, were building the map, mapping the ISP data to location data, doing the gap analysis, identifying service versus non-serviceable and building the public website so the public can interrogate it. Watch for more details soon, Frank said.

And LightBox still wants that bigger nationwide FCC contract: The company is in the middle of a challenge to the FCCs November decision to award a $45 million location fabric contract to a rival company known as CostQuest Associates, which had worked with USTelecom to run a mapping pilot effort in two states in 2019.

Todays announcement is another sign of LightBoxs ongoing broadband ambitions. Other customers using LightBoxs location data include internet service providers like AT&T and Charter Communications, tech giants like Google and Microsoft and real estate companies Zillow and Redfin.

The Government Accountability Office has up to 100 days to review the FCC contract decision, meaning the agency may not be able to proceed with a key part of its federal mapping efforts until sometime in February.

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has complained of the associated delays and suggested Congress may want to intervene. If Congress wishes to identify a legislative way to

expedite this process, the agency will provide whatever further information is necessary to assist, she assured lawmakers in a letter unveiled Friday.

FACEBOOK GRAPPLES WITH ISLAMIC EXTREMISM: Supporters of the Islamic State and the Taliban continue to sidestep the social networks content moderation rules, despite the companys claims to be clamping down on extremist material. In multiple open Facebook groups at least one of which had more than 100,000 members jihadist groups posted beheading videos, propaganda and violent hate speech, according to a report by POLITICOs Mark Scott, who conducted a review of months of social media activity

Refresher: Internal Facebook documents, made public by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen earlier this year, showed the companys own researchers had repeatedly raised concerns that hate speech targeting war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was avoiding detection by the platforms moderators.

A message from Save Our Standards:

Eva Berneke was appointed CEO of telecom company Eutelsat. She was previously CEO of IT company KMD.

International scamming: The New York Times conducted an investigation into an enormous online scam involving Harvard and several prominent media personalities in India.

Not just Meta: How TikTok inundates teens with videos to encourage eating disorders, via The Wall Street Journal.

ICYMI: We recommend this fabulous POLITICO piece by Nancy Scola about how Republican Colorado Rep. Ken Buck tries to avoid using products from Google, Amazon, Twitter and Apple.

Revolving door hits Kanter: Advocacy groups say Googles attack on DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter is far-fetched, according to Motherboard.

ICYMI: Critics say businesses regularly exploit H-1B visa holders, paying them below market wages, POLITICOs Rikha Sharma Rani writes.

A message from Save Our Standards:

Support US Jobs. Stop SEP Abuse.

A new draft policy statement on standard-essential patents (SEPs) committed for licensing on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms was released jointly by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Justice. The draft statement provides guidance on appropriate remedies in cases involving the use of these patents, and presents an approach to SEPs that strives to balance the interests of patent holders with the broad range of U.S. industries that use standards to protect the future of innovation.

Save Our Standards is a broad-based coalition working to end abusive practices in SEP licensing. We welcome the draft statement and support the Biden Administration for their leadership protecting U.S. competitiveness in charting out this balanced approach. Comments are being accepted through February 4. Support the Biden Administration to stop SEP abuse.

Tips, comments, suggestions? Send them along via email to our team: Bob King ([emailprotected]), Heidi Vogt ([emailprotected]), Emily Birnbaum ([emailprotected]), John Hendel ([emailprotected]), Rebecca Kern ([emailprotected]), Alexandra S. Levine ([emailprotected]) and Leah Nylen ([emailprotected]). Got an event for our calendar? Send details to [emailprotected]. And don't forget: Add @MorningTech and @PoliticoPro on Twitter.

TTYL!

Read more from the original source:

Biden's big bill is dead. What tech provisions might live on? - Politico

You may have seen it on TV or in action, up close and personal on social media: Big Tech, at the request of the federal government, has been censoring Americans who ask questions about the COVID vaccines. The unintended consequences of this blatant violation of Americans' First Amendment rights has been a growing mistrust of the government and what it says about the vaccine, resulting in a steady percentage of Americans remaining hesitant to get vaccinated. Everyday Americans are being censored by our social media giants when they ask questions or oppose the prevailing narrative. This censorship, intended to tamp down on "misinformation," is instead a leading source of vaccine hesitancy and fuels the fires of conspiracy theories.

Recent polling suggests that across party lines, Americans have an overall negative view of social media. A supermajority of 69 percent of Americans believes that social media makes it easier for misinformation to spread, creating a culture where a lack of trust is prevalent. Big Tech companies have tried to remedy this by censoring content it finds problematic, but this has had the opposite effect. The answer to speech one disagrees with isn't less speech; it's more speech.

Ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Tech has been working overtime to promote its own ideology over any dissent standing in the way. This strategy has only grown during the Biden administration. We've seen doctors censored for questioning the vaccine, along with any posts that did the same thing. It's easy to conclude this was the result of Big Tech working together with the government, which Jen Psaki openly admitted did happen earlier this year. Big Tech and the federal government don't want debate that could undermine their preferred narrative. It's straight out of the totalitarian playbook.

Understanding and appreciating our differences helps bring us together by building bridges, thus benefiting all of us. That is why censorship and cancel culture are so troubling. Instead of resolving our differences, these forces exacerbate them. When you marginalize, you radicalize.

Today's biggest proponents, enablers and enforcers of censorship and cancel culture are the trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists: Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. Big Tech monopolists have an unholy alliance with Big Government to censor, silence, deplatform and even cancel those with whom they disagree. When Big Tech censors under the guise of protecting us from "misinformation," it behaves more like the communist Chinese than patriotic, constitutionally guided Americans.

Big Tech has been particularly egregious with its COVID censorship. Big Tech is censoring noted doctors, scientists and even a sitting United States senatorwho also happens to be a doctor. Even if one is ignorant or arrogant enough to believe that Big Tech is the ultimate arbiter of truth, how does censoring dissenting doctors and scientists help convince vaccine-hesitant Americans disproportionately Black and Hispanicto overcome their concerns and get vaccinated?

Censorship is counter-productive. It makes people lose confidence in the science, particularly the science behind vaccines. COVID vaccines are indeed quite effective, especially in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. But many people don't believe this because censorship has created mistrust.

Individuals must be allowed the freedom to make their own choices, especially when it comes to their health and well-being. We don't need Biden administration officials and their censors working with Big Tech to protect us from ourselves. Get the information out there, good or bad, right or wrong, and let people make their own informed decisions, in consultation with their own medical providers.

There are no real competitors to Big Tech, especially as it relates to online speech. Google owns YouTube. Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp. Google controls online search. Facebook and Google control the digital advertising market. Google and Apple control the smartphone app market. And Facebook, Twitter and Google control social media. These conglomerates can pick and choose winners and losers with no repercussions. This cannot be allowed any longer.

How do we fix this? We must do two important things.

First, we must end Big Tech's antitrust amnesty. We cannot continue to allow trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists to use their market dominance to kill competitors like Parler, control the online public square and censor our opinions. We must break up Big Tech before it is too late.

Second, we must repeal Big Tech's Section 230 shieldwhich gives the companies immunity with respect to third-party content posted on their platformsso they can no longer censor, silence, deplatform and even cancel those with whom they disagree. This leads to government-sponsored censorship, and Biden officials have made it clear that the government is actively working with various social media platforms to censor Americans.

The COVID vaccine is a remarkable human achievement that is saving millions of lives across the globe. But many Americans aren't going to believe that because they think they aren't being told the full story. And it's truethey're not. Big Tech is censoring critical voices online and it's having a devastating effect, contributing directly to vaccine hesitancy. If we break up Big Tech to give users more options and modernize Section 230 to allow for freer online speech, Americans would feel more confident they aren't being lied to. They would choose to get vaccinated after they feel more fully informed.

We need more competition, not less. We need more free speech, not less. The less we have of each, the more dangerous and totalitarian the national political and social environment becomes. And that's not a road we want to continue to go down.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of Unsilenced Majority, an organization dedicated to opposing cancel culture and fighting back against the woke mob and their enablers. Davis is the former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch.

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

The rest is here:

Big Tech Censorship of COVID Information Leads to Vaccine ...

After State Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R-32)posted his opinion on the developing Kyle Rittenhouse case, Facebook censored the conservative legislator on their platform.

The censor consists of not being allowed to go live or advertise for an entire month for, "violating Community Standards," especially Facebook policy on, "dangerous individuals and organizations."

Rep. Sabatini has been one of the most proactive representatives on Big Tech. Earlier this year Sabatini authored HB 33. The bill titled, Social Media Websites, intends to, authorize Floridas attorney general to bring legal action on behalf of website users, which, "would apply to any social media company that enters the stream of commerce in Florida.

This past Summer, Governor DeSantis (R-FL) signed a bill that would stop Big Tech companies, like Facebook, from banning political candidates from their platform.

Unfortunately for Sabatini, he was still the subject of censorship. Because of this, the representative is now calling for Big Tech to be broken up immediately.

The state representative is also a candidate for Florida's District 7 race against the incumbent, US Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL). Sabatini has always been known as one of the most conservative legislators in the State House, however, his appeal will be interesting against the self-described, "Blue Dog Democrat," Rep. Murphy.

Here is the original post:

Conservative Legislator Censored By Big Tech The Floridian

In recent years, Big Tech executives have all said the same thing about the prospect of sweeping federal reform of legacy social media platforms: bring it on. By openly calling for regulation, Big Tech is luring Congress into stifling free market competitionand lawmakers are taking the bait.

At a recent hearing, the top executive of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, told the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security that the company supports federal oversight of the social media sector. He proposed implementing an industry panel that would regulate safety standards for social networking apps.

Mosseri explained that the panel would answer to policymakers but should have authority to punish tech companies that don't follow its directives. In other words, he called for a bureaucratic committee to regulate the behavior of his and other social media platforms.

The Instagram executive wasn't alone. Facebooknow Metahas published white papers exploring various possibilities for federal regulation. The company's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has publicly called for greater government involvement in the tech sector in areas such as elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability.

"I believe clearer rules would be better for everyone," Zuckerberg wrote last year. "The internet is a powerful force for social and economic empowerment. Regulation that protects people and supports innovation can ensure it stays that way."

As far back as 2019, Twitter's then-CEO Jack Dorsey expressed similar sentiments, declaring that "Generally, I think regulation is a good thing" and that government intervention would be a "net positive" for the tech sector.

There is a very good reason why all these legacy social media giants are so supportive of government action: federal regulations will make it even harder for new platforms to compete with established tech giants.

While mainstream social media networks have the resources to easily absorb the costs of regulatory action, smaller platforms will have to bear the brunt of new policies.

Comprehensive federal regulations are also an easy way for Big Tech to pass off its burden of responsibility to lawmakers. With the federal government in the lead, it would be impossible to demand accountability from Big Tech on issues such as data privacy, mental health and free speech. The duty to implement effective regulations will fall to the bureaucrats, not Big Tech executiveswhich is exactly why this scenario is appealing to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Big Tech's stance on government regulation raises an obvious questionif tech giants really wanted to bring about change, why are they waiting for the federal government? Nothing prevents legacy social media platforms from fixing their mistakes and improving user experiences right now. Instead, they are busy performing public relations stunts and funding marketing campaigns to clean up their tarnished reputations.

Presumably, this is not what most of the American people envision when they ask for accountability from Big Tech. And yet, it is exactly what we will get if Big Tech companies finally get their long-awaited big government oversight.

It must be said that total government inaction is not a solution, either. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, for instance, needs to be properly implemented and enforced to ensure that social media platforms lose their special legal privileges if they participate in political censorship. Even so, Congress needs to be careful about how it reforms Section 230 so as to avoid unintentionally harming smaller social media platforms.

To argue that sweeping government regulation is the only way to reform Big Tech is to pretend that the free market system is incapable of creating alternatives to legacy social media. The tech sector, after all, is not immune to the law of demand, which has driven millions of people to alternative platforms this year alone.

Big Tech's ongoing push for federal regulations is not about taking accountability for the industry's actionsit's about luring lawmakers into a regulatory trap that will stifle new social media ventures. Competition, not sweeping government action, is the key to reforming the world of social media.

Jeff Brain is the founder and CEO of a rising social media platform, CloutHub, which champions free speech, safeguards user privacy, and protects mental health. To learn more about CloutHub, visit http://www.clouthub.com/home.

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

More:

Big Tech is Luring Congress into a Regulation Trap | Opinion - Newsweek

The debate around social medias impact on mental health is hardly new, but the conversation has recaptured the worlds attention in light of reports this fall that suggest Facebook has been well aware of the toxic mental health consequences of its platforms for teens.

While this data and the knowledge that Facebook ignored these concerns is troubling, understanding social medias impact on mental health isnt all that simple. In fact, theres a strong argument to be made that social media can offer safe, affirming spaces and connections for young people on the journey to discover themselves and their identities.

These benefits are too often pushed aside while the dark consequences of social media rage on. The fact is that todays popular social networking platforms, like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and more, are designed with monetization as a top priority. At their core, these apps encourage excessive use because more user hours on the app equal more ad support.

The tech industry has an opportunity and a responsibility to make space for platforms that arent dependent on ad dollars.

While some have responded to the latest backlash by declaring that spaces like Instagram should be strictly reserved for adults, I strongly believe that its possible to build a social media environment that is beneficial for teenagers one that helps them discover themselves and affirm who they are; one that lets them explore their identities freely; and one that comforts them in times of darkness and helps them know they are not alone.

Im not sure this future can be cultivated by reactive features alone, but there is potential for social media giants to team up with other organizations and nonprofits to make social media a safer place for all people.

While its difficult to imagine a world where for-profit social media is not a monopoly, it doesnt have to be this way. It may not be realistic to eliminate ad-supported social media apps completely, but the tech industry does have an opportunity and responsibility to make space for platforms that arent dependent on ad dollars.

If the number of views, clicks and ads were secondary to peoples wants and needs, we could revolutionize the way social media platforms work. Together, we could build communities that users can come to on their own terms whether to escape pressure from other apps, connect with peers or find an accepting place where they can be themselves.

While a handful of ad-free social media spaces already exist such as Ello and TrevorSpace, The Trevor Projects social networking site for LGBTQ+ young people they are much smaller and have fewer features, and therefore may not attract the high volume of users who are accustomed to the bells and whistles that come with social media apps such as Instagram.

There also needs to be a space online for young people to explore their identities anonymously, which is nearly impossible when social media companies prioritize ad support over their users mental health and well-being. Advertisers want to know exactly who is spending time on social media so they can target users based on their age, gender, behavior and identities. This becomes especially problematic for young users who want to use social media as a vehicle for figuring out who they are but cant do so discreetly.

In order to overcome this, the industry as a whole needs to make more investments in social media spaces whose purpose isnt profit. Over the past few years, tech giants have made incredible strides in product innovation, which could be applied to other sites that give users a safe place to express themselves and find supportive communities.

Theres a time and place for Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and other ad-supported apps, but theres also a clear need and want for online spaces that arent driven by revenue. It doesnt have to be one or the other, and we can work together to make room for both.

With TrevorSpace, for example, weve invested in research to better understand our users wants and needs, without the added pressure of meeting specific revenue goals. Through this research, weve learned that our users look to the internet to explore their identities and value having a safe space where they can express themselves.

Beyond investing in more nonprofit social media platforms, theres also an opportunity for tech companies to apply their leading-edge AI developments to improve the user experience on social media and alleviate some of the mental health stressors caused by spending too much time online.

Social media sites currently use machine learning to inform algorithms that encourage people to spend more time online, but its possibilities extend far beyond that. We know that technology has the power to support peoples mental health instead of exacerbating mental illness, so what if we used AI to give users newfound control over social media?

Imagine if AI could help people find what they really need in a given moment like guiding users to content that makes them laugh when they want to laugh or cry when they want to cry, facilitating connections between like-minded users that build positive relationships, or suggesting resources that give them skills or knowledge that positively impact their life.

The majority of social media apps today use AI to determine our feeds, for you pages and timelines for us. However, if we instead used AI to let people guide their own journeys on social media, we could foster a fundamentally different emotional experience one that supported their wants and needs instead of simply monopolizing their time and attention.

This sounds like a no-brainer, and some may even believe this is already happening. However, as recently bolstered by former Facebook product manager Frances Haugens testimony, this is simply not how the content we see is curated in the current hands of social media leaders. That must change.

Thanks to unprecedented innovations and research in social media, we have the technology needed to create sites that are conducive to our well-being; its just a matter of investing time and resources in developing them and creating space for nonprofit apps to coexist with major ad-supported apps.

Looking ahead, I see the potential for social media companies to partner with nonprofit companies to develop AI that gives users control over the content they see and how they interact with it, but it would take major time, investment and collaboration from both parties. It would also require social media giants to be OK with making room for much-needed alternative apps in the space.

Making social media safer and healthier for all people is a goal that many nonprofits, including The Trevor Project, are dedicated to realizing, and we would greatly benefit from social media companies help making it happen.

See the article here:

Nonprofits have the answers to improve social media: Big Tech has the resources to make it happen - TechCrunch

In his 2021 Reith lectures, the third episode of which airs tonight, the artificial intelligence researcher Stuart Russell takes up the idea of a near-future AI that is so ruthlessly intelligent that it might pose an existential threat to humanity. A machine we create that might destroy us all.

This has long been a popular topic with researchers and the press. But we believe an existential threat from AI is both unlikely and in any case far off, given the current state of the technology. However, the recent development of powerful, but far smaller-scale, AI systems has had a significant effect on the world already, and the use of existing AI poses serious economic and social challenges. These are not distant, but immediate, and must be addressed.

These include the prospect of large-scale unemployment due to automation, with attendant political and social dislocation, as well as the use of personal data for purposes of commercial and political manipulation. The incorporation of ethnic and gender bias in datasets used by AI programs that determine job candidate selection, creditworthiness, and other important decisions is a well-known problem.

But by far the most immediate danger is the role that AI data analysis and generation plays in spreading disinformation and extremism on social media. This technology powers bots and amplification algorithms. These have played a direct role in fomenting conflict in many countries. They are helping to intensify racism, conspiracy theories, political extremism and a plethora of violent, irrationalist movements.

Such movements are threatening the foundations of democracy throughout the world. AI-driven social media was instrumental in mobilising Januarys insurrection at the US Capitol, and it has propelled the anti-vax movement since before the pandemic.

Behind all of this is the power of big tech companies, which develop the relevant data processing technology and host the social media platforms on which it is deployed. With their vast reserves of personal data, they use sophisticated targeting procedures to identify audiences for extremist posts and sites. They promote this content to increase advertising revenue, and in so doing, actively assist the rise of these destructive trends.

They exercise near-monopoly control over the social media market, and a range of other digital services. Meta, through its ownership of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, and Google, which controls YouTube, dominate much of the social media industry. This concentration of power gives a handful of companies far-reaching influence on political decision making.

Given the importance of digital services in public life, it is reasonable to expect that big tech would be subject to the same sort of regulation that applies to the corporations that control markets in other parts of the economy. In fact, this is not generally the case.

The social media agencies have not been restricted by the antitrust regulations, truth in advertising legislation, or laws against racist incitement that apply to traditional print and broadcast networks. Such regulation does not guarantee responsible behaviour (as rightwing cable networks and rabid tabloids illustrate), but it does provide an instrument of constraint.

Three main arguments have been advanced against increased government regulation of big tech. The first holds that it would inhibit free speech. The second argues that it would degrade innovation in science and engineering. The third maintains that socially responsible companies can best regulate themselves. These arguments are entirely specious.

Some restrictions on free speech are well motivated by the need to defend the public good. Truth in advertising is a prime example. Legal prohibitions against racist incitement and group defamation are another. These constraints are generally accepted in most liberal democracies (with the exception of the US) as integral to the legal approach to protecting people from hate crime.

Social media platforms often deny responsibility for the content of the material that they host, on the grounds that it is created by individual users. In fact, this content is published in the public domain, and so it cannot be construed as purely private communication.

When it comes to safety, government-imposed regulations have not prevented dramatic bioengineering advances, like the recent mRNA-based Covid vaccines. Nor did they stop car companies from building efficient electric vehicles. Why would they have the unique effect of reducing innovation in AI and information technology?

Finally, the view that private companies can be trusted to regulate themselves out of a sense of social responsibility is entirely without merit. Businesses exist for the purpose of making money. Business lobbies often ascribe to themselves the image of a socially responsible industry acting out of a sense of concern for public welfare. In most cases this is a public relations manoeuvre intended to head off regulation.

Any company that prioritises social benefit over profit will quickly cease to exist. This was showcased in Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugens recent congressional testimony, indicating that the companys executives chose to ignore the harm that some of their algorithms were causing, in order to sustain the profits they provided.

Consumer pressure can, on occasion, act as leverage for restraining corporate excess. But such cases are rare. In fact, legislation and regulatory agencies are the only effective means that democratic societies have at their disposal for protecting the public from the undesirable effects of corporate power.

Finding the best way to regulate a powerful and complex industry like big tech is a difficult problem. But progress has been made on constructive proposals. Lina Khan, the US federal trade commissioner advanced antitrust proposals for dealing with monopolistic practices in markets. The European commission has taken a leading role in instituting data protection and privacy laws.

Academics MacKenzie Common and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen offer a balanced discussion of ways in which government can restrict disinformation and hate speech in social media, while sustaining free expression. This is the most complex, and most pressing, of the problems involved in controlling technology companies.

The case for regulating big tech is clear. The damage it is doing across a variety of domains is throwing into question the benefits of its considerable achievements in science and engineering. The global nature of corporate power renders the ability of national governments in democratic countries to restrain big tech increasingly limited.

There is a pressing need for large trading blocs and international agencies to act in concert to impose effective regulation on digital technology companies. Without such constraints big tech will continue to host the instruments of extremism, bigotry, and unreason that are generating social chaos, undermining public health and threatening democracy.

Devdatt Dubhashi is professor of data science and AI at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. Shalom Lappin is professor of natural language processing at Queen Mary University of London, director of the Centre for Linguistic Theory and Studies in Probability at the University of Gothenburg, and emeritus professor of computational linguistics at Kings College London.

Read the original post:

Scared about the threat of AI? Its the big tech giants that need reining in - The Guardian