Category Archives: Big Tech

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Jonathan Kanter, the third of three progressives named to top U.S. antitrust posts by President Joe Biden, pledged on Wednesday to enforce antitrust law in agriculture, pharmaceutical prices and the labor market, as well as in Big Tech.

Lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee did not focus on the Big Tech markets, which have received huge amounts of public attention, but asked about a range of industries. In response to each, Kanter pledged vigorous enforcement of antitrust law.

Kanter showed enthusiasm when asked about the labor market, where non-compete agreements and other issues have come under criticism for making it harder for workers to leave their jobs for a higher salary or better conditions.

He said that once confirmed he was "eager" to work on the issue.

If confirmed by the Senate, as expected, Kanter will take the reins of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division amid calls for tougher enforcement overall, with special criticism aimed at Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) Google, Facebook Inc (FB.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and Apple Inc (AAPL.O). The companies have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

The department has sued Google and is investigating Apple for violations of antitrust law. read more

Kanter has spent years representing rivals of Google, which the Justice Department sued last year alleging that it broke antitrust law in seeking to hobble rivals.

The Biden administration previously chose two antitrust progressives with tech expertise, Tim Wu for the National Economic Council and Lina Khan to be a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission.

Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Kirsten Donovan

Excerpt from:

U.S. Justice Dept antitrust nominee says he is eager to tackle more than just Big Tech - Reuters

Data sovereignty rules around the world continue to get tighter as countries look to protect their citizens data. In Europe, one of the ways of ensuring data sovereignty is via the sovereign cloud.

European enterprises want to be able to enjoy the flexibilities and capabilities provided on the cloud this includes having access to data wherever they are and developing new workloads to meet customer demands, while also being legally compliant, secure, and transparent with regulators.

A KPMG France report showed that the European cloud industry is dominated by three major operators: AWS (53%), Microsoft (9%), and Google (8%), the need for regulations over how they handle customers is becoming increasingly important. And this is where the sovereign cloud comes in.

With the European cloud market expected to climb to between 300 billion to 500 billion by 2027 to 2030, the sovereign cloud is designed to deliver security and data access, based on the requirements of any local law or regulated industry. For enterprises, the sovereign cloud enables them to handle local regulations efficiently without the need to worry about infringing any local laws.

In Europe, privacy concerns are one of the biggest reasons why big tech companies are now looking to partner with local cloud providers when it comes to offering their cloud services. Some of the worlds largest tech companies have been fined in the past for not complying with European regulations and have faced huge fines.

During VMworld 2021, the US-based cloud provider VMware recently announced that they are partnering with local cloud providers to develop the sovereign cloud. Some of the regional European cloud providers working with VMware include European cloud provider OVHcloud, major telco services like Telefonica, the Spanish multinational telco provider.

In Italy, Oracle has also partnered with Telecom Italia and its cloud division Noovle to bring multi-cloud services to enterprises and public sector organizations. Oracles hybrid and multi-cloud strategy will enable TIM to ensure that customer data is hosted in-country with a cloud solution that meets customers data sovereignty needs.

The collaboration with Oracle is a key element for accelerating our groups transition to more flexible models and supporting the digitization of businesses and public administration. By adopting a multi-cloud model, we can enrich our offer of high value-added services, enabling our customers to promptly seize the best business opportunities while simultaneously improving efficiency, said Carlo dAsaro Biondo, CEO, Noovle.

In France, Google Cloud and Thales are co-developing a sovereign hyper-scale cloud offering in the country to meet the criteria of the French Trusted Cloud. The jointly developed sovereign cloud offering will enable French organizations to innovate and fully benefit from hype-scale cloud technology, while keeping their data confidential, secure, and fully sovereign.

(Photo by REMY GABALDA / AFP)

According to Google Cloud, French companies and public sector institutions will be able to benefit from a set of hyper-scale cloud services that are:

At the same time, Thales will bring the necessary guarantees of Frances sovereignty requirements by ensuring the management of encryption keys, access, identities, and cyber threat monitoring with its Cybersecurity Operations Center. French customers will be able to migrate their most sensitive applications to the cloud while maintaining control.

For Thomas Kurian, Google Cloud CEO, the joint vision will deliver the most innovative and trusted solutions to companies and public sector organizations in France.

Our unique approach to addressing the concerns of French citizens and government bodies, including the development of a new company, ensures organizations can benefit from the innovation and agility of the cloud, without compromising on the security, privacy, and sovereignty required by the French government, said Kurian.

The governments national cloud strategy clearly specifies the states willingness to use and promote high-performance and trusted cloud offerings. The challenge is to have the widest possible range of solutions compliant with the SecNumCloud repository which details the technical, operational, and legal security rules capable of effectively protecting data and processes hosted in a cloud service,said Guillaume Poupard, Director General of the National Information Systems Security Agency (ANSSI.)

As Europe continues to go down hard on big tech companies and how they make use of customer data, more are looking to expand their capabilities in the region by partnering with local tech providers.

At the end of the day, to operate in Europe, global technology providers need to prove that they are trustworthy and able to meet all data sovereignty requirements set. Failure to do so may only lead to heftier fines and even a ban in the future.

See the article here:

In Europe, big tech providers are at the mercy of data sovereignty - TechHQ

Ailan Evans

Democratic congressional staffers are leaving their positions on Capitol Hill to work for major tech companies, according to a Politico report.

April Jones, who worked as deputy legislative director and counsel for Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota on technology and telecommunications matters, left her position last Tuesday to join Apples government affairs team, Politicoreported.

Jones departure came on the same day thatKlobuchardecriedthe influence of Big Tech in Washington during Facebook whistleblowerFrances Haugens testimony.

Facebook and the other tech companies are throwing a bunch of money around this town and people are listening to them, Klobuchar said during her questioning of Haugen, expressing frustration about the fact that there are lobbyists around every single corner of this building that have been hired by the tech industry.

Lara Muldoon, who workedfor Senate Commerce Committee Chair Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington,leftin June to serve as a senior director of government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade association.

The Senate Commerce Committees senior Democratic technology staffer, John Branscome,leftthe committee in September to work for Facebooks federal policy team, Politicoreported, while Branscomes deputy, Shawn Bone, left for Verizon.

Over a dozen Democratic staffers have left their positions to work in the tech industry this year, Politico reported.

Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, who serves as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, told Politico the departures related to the low salaries offered in staffer positions.

Its hard to keep very talented people here when the private sector is offering so much more money, Doyle said. You get people that want to come back, they go out for a while and make some money and then they want to come back.

Support journalism byclicking here to our GoFundMeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon

See the original post here:

Democratic Staffers Are Fleeing The Hill To Work For Big Tech: REPORT - The Free Press

Since December 2020 until now, Patently Apple has posted at least five reports on the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) that is out to damage the top Silicon Valley giants like Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook (01, 02, 03, 04 and 05). France's President Macron made it clear that Europe wants to replace the top 10 U.S. tech companies with European equivalents. It would appear that the EU would like to stop US company influence in Europe and fine the companies exorbitant amounts so as to finance this European transformation.

Last month Google told a European Court that the staggering US$5 billion antitrust fine was flawed. They urging Europe's second-highest court to scrap or reduce what it said was not an appropriate penalty.

European anger against Google, for instance, was highlighted in a new Netflix series titled "The Billion Dollar Code." Quick overview: "In 1990s Berlin, an artist and a hacker invented a new way to see the world. Years later, they reunite to sue Google for patent infringement on it. The European start-up claimed that a key Google executive that came from Silicon Graphics ripped off their work and patent to create Google Earth.

The series is geared to one conclusion, that Google's one time motto of "Don't be Evil" was the exact opposite of how they ripped off this European start-up. You couldn't watch the German series (dubbed in English) without concluding that Google crushed this start-up without blinking. How many Apple fans felt way with Eric Schmidt sitting on Apple's board and using his insider knowledge to bring Android to market in a surprise to Steve Jobs?

Yet with that said, many companies like Europe's Spotify and America's Epic Games feel like Apple works against them to repress their innovations and more. Europe believes, and to a certain extent, Congress believes, that gatekeepers like Google and Apple are harming innovation.

Today, the Financial Times wrote a report titled "Fighting in Brussels bogs down plans to regulate Big Tech." The report describes how the European Parliament is attempting to fast track both the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), though in reality, the two bills are being both bogged down and watered down by a determined opposition. They now fear that the legislation has a chance of failing before the EUs competition and digital policy chief, Margrethe Vestager, leaves her post in three years.

Evelyne Gebhardt, a German MEP, said in exasperation during last months debate that "It sounded like we had agreed but that is not the case...at all. We are a long way from having a common position on this."

Another person directly involved in the parliamentary debate stated that the slow progress also gives Big Tech more time to fully capture key sectors of the economy. "If we wait too long some markets will not be able to be repaired any more. This is about protecting small companies in Europe. We need to get this done as soon as possible."

The European Parliament lawmaker Andreas Schwab, which is leading the file for the EU body, stated in his report that "The DMA should be clearly targeted to those platforms that play an unquestionable role as gatekeepers due to their size and their impact on the internal market."

The Reuter's report back in June further noted that "Schwab also proposed beefing up a list of donts set out by the Commission, among them a halt to tech giants to favoring their own services on their platforms or harvesting data from their platforms to compete with their business users."

The Reuters' report made it very clear that Schwab and the EU were targeting draft rules aimed at reining in the power of Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon that should be the only targets.

Today's Financial Times report added that "the Socialists & Democrats (S&D), the second-largest political group in the European parliament, want to include other types of digital services, such as video streaming, music streaming, mobile payments and cloud services.

The Dutch MEP Paul Tang stated that "If we only go after five companies this wont fix the problem. companies worth more than 50bn should be regulated, a threshold that would also capture the Netherlands-based Booking.com, Germanys SAP and Airbnb."

Tang added: "I fear new gatekeepers will rise instantly once you have dealt with Google and the rest. We need the legislation to be future proof, We have waited more than 20 years to reform the rules of the internet and so we will need to make it strong enough for the upcoming 20 years."

Yet another person involved in the debate stated that the impasse will not be easily solved. "Everyone has a hard position and nobody is willing to move and compromise." For more details, read the full Financial Times report, here.

The rest is here:

While the EU Parliament wants to Crush Silicon Valley's Big Tech, the legislation that could make it happen has hit a brick wall of Opposition -...

Critics say the tech industry is having a "Big Tobacco moment," but limiting harms caused by giant tech firms is likely to prove even trickier than reducing the toll of smoking.

One key difference is that Big Tobacco was a relatively stationary target, with the big companies all producing roughly the same product and doing so year after year.

By contrast, products from Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and others differ widely from one another, as do the perceived harms. Meanwhile, the companies and their industry are all rapidly moving targets.

Driving the news: Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has been comparing Facebook to the cigarette companies for quite a while.

The big picture: There are clear parallels, including companies hiding and then downplaying internal research warning of their products' harms.

The risk for would-be regulators is that much of today's discussion in their circles is focused on social media platforms that are in a constant state of turnover.

Of note: An analysis by Blair Levin of New Street Research points out that litigation drove the campaign against tobacco.

What to watch: Legislators and regulators will have to find consensus not just on which companies are causing problems, but also on what exactly the harms are and how to reduce them.

The bottom line: Despite "Big Tobacco moments" and ensuing regulation and restriction, tobacco smoking still causes 480,000 U.S. deaths each year, per the FDA.

Link:

Why Big Tech is harder to rein in than tobacco - Axios

In recent years, big tech companies have been pivoting into different industries. By applying their knowledge of emerging tech, theyve been able to disrupt and overtake established players in the market. And with the emergence of open banking, theyve now turned their sights on the finance industry.

Google Pay will soon let Citibank customers (and nine other banks) manage accounts directly from the app. Apple launched the Apple Card, its own credit card issued by Goldman Sachs. Amazon now offers up to $1M in loans to small businesses. Meanwhile, Facebook plans to launch its own digital currency Diem (formerly Libra) in the US.

Big banks need to innovate rapidly to compete with these emerging players who can offer new digital services to customers. However, while tech giants definitely have some key advantages over traditional banks more development power, better equipped for innovation, and massive user bases banks do hold an important card: customer trust.

With life as we previously knew it being disrupted during the pandemic, many organizations have had to rethink their processes and operations to survive and emerge stronger in the new digital era. Values in society and business have shifted, and one of the most prominent attributes talked about today is the importance of trust. Consumers are more risk averse, with a heightened sense of which organizations they can trust and rely on.

In recent years, big tech, and particularly Google, Facebook, and Amazon, have faced criticism and a slew of investigations over the harvesting of users personal data. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal to Siri and Alexas very unwelcome eavesdropping, more and more consumers are thinking twice about giving up their personal data in exchange for the companies services.

Another issue is security. Big techs track record with data breaches, both external and internal, have been called into question. Most recently, the data of 533 million Facebook users was posted in a low level hacking forum, meanwhile a number of Amazon employees were fired after leaking customer emails and phone numbers.

According to a report by Ponemon on privacy and security, 86% of adults said they were concerned about how companies like Facebook and Google use their personal data. At the end of the day, while these companies may offer different services to consumers from search engines to online marketplaces, their real revenue comes from advertising, which means data is gold.

The question is, with big techs move towards banking, will consumers be willing to trust them with their financial data?

All this means that banks could compete with big tech if they maximize on that trust gap. But tech innovation remains a significant hurdle.

Differing from big tech, banks based on centuries of experience have been built for privacy and security. As Berno Snijder, Lead Identity & Access Management atABN AMRO explained, from multi-factor authentication and audit trails to secure processes, banks have multiple layers of defence before you can access the data.

As Snijdersays, regardless of whats happening around us, people still trust banks today. Its a safe haven. When you ask people who they trust more with their data, they would still choose the bank as being the safest.

But this heritageis also their disadvantage in the race against big tech players.

Banks have been hesitant to adopt certain technologies, as the question around trust and privacy is brought to the forefront. If a bank decides to use a cloud solution, for example, to enable a more efficient and seamless product offering to their customers, they need to consider their responsibility and accountability for the data added to that platform.

Snijder admits that banks have beenreluctant to adopt certain external solutions:

Its the not-invented-here syndrome. Banks traditionally only trust the solutions that they build, manage and control themselves. This has two disadvantages. Firstly, theyre very expensive, and secondly, theyre not always customer friendly.

The biggest challenges facing banks today are slow growth, profitability, and digital adoption along with strict regulations. Outdated systems and processes may mean these institutions could fall behind financial big tech.

The question is how can we manage that? I think the biggest puzzle we have to solve is how to collaboratewith big tech companies we cannot survive just ignoring them or trying to compete with them. You have to find a way to work with them, as a partner, as a competitor, and as an enabler. And the biggest beneficiaries should always be the customer, says Snijder.

With the customer experience being a major factor, banks need to embrace the new technological challenge to improve, upgrade, and transform their processes and systems, and build on the digital innovation they lack. At ABN AMRO, this is seen through new partnerships being built with fintech start-ups, academics, and hackers, as well as through their Innovation Lab and introduction of AI, IoT, and blockchain.

Through its Digital Impact Fund, ABN AMRO partners with up and coming fintechs. This allows the bank to stay up to speed with the rapid pace of tech innovation and offer cutting edge products to customers, while providing fintechs with much needed funding.

For example, their partnership with Swedish startup Tink resulted in a personal finance management app called Grip. Meanwhile, their partnership with BehavioSec gives them access to the latest cyber-security technologies.

Designed to explore new ideas and opportunities for technology, society, and the product offering, the Innovation Lab is a prime example of how banks are transforming into modern businesses with an entrepreneurial mindset. Snijder explains,

New technologies like biometrics, the smart coffee machine, or identifying fraudulent transactions using Artificial Intelligence, bring new opportunities (and challenges) which are worth exploring to see if they can improve customer experience.

Developing customer trust is not simply about adopting the latest technology. Its about using it to address wider trends and demands in society in line with consumer expectations. This is what will differentiate and ensure the continued success of traditional banks.

To really build trust, Snijder tells us:

We have to accept the trust experience is different for every individual. This means we have to put the customer experience in the centre of our service offerings, in line with our responsibility to make sure banking is available for everyone. There is a complete transformation from being a money-driven to a society-driven organization.

For example, during the pandemic, the bank quickly developed user-friendly personalized communication methods: an omnichannel customer experience that offers the option of video communication for customers, as well as an online platform that can be accessed via biometric authentication or a password, depending on each customers preference.

With these options, any customer, regardless of age or whether they are tech savvy, is able to continue banking in the way they feel comfortable with. Snijder tells us, there is no one solution that fits all, we need to provide flexibility to the customer so they can choose what they want within the boundaries that we set. Its a paradigm shift. Listening and adhering to the customers needs nurtures the existing trust they have.

Supporting customers financially and evolving their offering along with societal changes will be imperative to ensuring the future of the traditional banks success in a digitally evolving world.

Originally posted here:

Banks can compete with big tech by exploiting the trust gap - The Next Web

Around the world, governments are challenging the immense power of Big Tech, causing politically motivated showdowns between their officials and tech companies to become increasingly commonplace.

In mid-September, just as voting began in Russias parliamentary elections, Apple and Google capitulated to ongoing government demands to remove from their online stores a smartphone app created by allies of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. To channel support away from the Kremlins preferred candidate, the app improved strategic coordination among voters and advised them about which candidates were most likely to defeat those backed by the ruling party.

The companies alarming decision fits a larger, global pattern. Governments around the world are increasingly wielding their regulatory power to subdue free expression online and gain greater access to private information. To respond to the immense power of the tech industry without emboldening digital repression by the state, regulations must make human rights and democratic values a priority.

The use of regulation for political ends was on full display in Russia, as state authorities coerced the two California-based tech titans into censorship amid tightly controlled elections, limiting the ability of opponents of Vladimir Putins government to organize.

Set against the backdrop of an 11-year decline in global internet freedom and a 15-year decline in overall democratic rights worldwide as identified in Freedom Houses research the question of how much and what kind of regulatory power governments should have over technology companies is both urgent and delicate.

In a recently released Freedom House report on internet freedom, we found that 48 of 70 countries surveyed pursued at least one form of regulatory action on online content, personal data or competition against technology firms over the last year. More than a dozen new laws threaten the future of free expression online. More governments are pressuring companies to remove broad swaths of content, often under the pretext of protecting users from misinformation, incitement to hatred or material that is harmful to minors. Their true aim is to suppress anti-government speech, investigative reporting and expressions of LGBTQ+ identity and other posts that may be politically disfavored.

Some government leaders have taken the opposite tack and attempted to ban platforms from moderating content, which could allow for the proliferation of false or hateful propaganda and threats of violence to drown out authentic discussion and debate. Only in a few cases do laws require companies to be more transparent over their content moderation, advertising practices and use of algorithms, and provide content producers with an avenue for appeal when their content is restricted.

Dozens of laws introduced to regulate corporate data management are also ripe for government exploitation. Many require companies to undermine end-to-end encryption a security method that prevents data from being accessed by anyone other than sender and recipient in their products, or mandate that user data be stored on servers located within the country. In practice, weakened encryption and domestic data storage expand government ability to access peoples most intimate information. Even laws that ostensibly enshrine the rights of users to control their data often contain vague surveillance exemptions for national security.

More positively, industry regulators around the globe have also displayed a zeal for cracking down on anti-competitive and abusive commercial practices, and for fining major tech firms for failing to protect data and exploiting their market power. A few countries, such as Germany, have introduced measures that would prohibit companies from denying interoperability and data portability.

But competition policy also can be crafted and used for political gain. For instance, Chinese regulators have been among the most aggressive in addressing monopolistic practices by the countrys tech giants. However, their interventions such as forced company restructurings and politicized pressure on business leaders have raised concerns that the government is more interested in reining in these companies autonomy and influence than in fair competition and consumer protection.

The global drive to control Big Tech is occurring in tandem with a historic crackdown on internet freedom. In 56 of the countries covered by our report, officials arrested or convicted people for their online speech over the last year.

Governments suspended internet access in at least 20 countries, and 21 others blocked access to social media platforms, most often during times of political turmoil such as protests and elections. Authorities in at least 45 countries are suspected of obtaining spyware or data-extraction technology from private vendors, giving themselves unprecedented, extrajudicial access to private communications.

Some of the most illustrative cases of digital repression in the last year occurred in Myanmar, Belarus and Uganda, where electoral disputes led officials to shut off internet service, censor social media platforms and independent digital news outlets, and physically assault internet users.

With so many aspects of our lives moving online, new internet regulations are likely to have a lasting impact on our ability to express ourselves freely, share information across borders and hold the powerful to account.

We need to ensure that regulation does not become a tool for governments around the world to exert greater control over the digital sphere. Advocates for a free and open internet including those from governments, civil society and the private sector should push for new laws that prevent power from accumulating in the hands of a few dominant players, whether in the private sector or the state. That means making free expression a priority in content moderation and requiring platforms to be far more transparent and accountable when they do remove speech.

Data privacy laws should provide users with control over their information, institute safeguards against government surveillance and protect encryption. And policies that govern competition should foster innovation to allow people to make informed decisions about their online experiences.

Regulation is not a panacea, but well-designed rules and incentives can ensure the internet retains its emancipatory power, with all its potential to drive personal and societal progress.

Adrian Shahbaz is director for technology and democracy at Freedom House. Allie Funk is senior research analyst for technology and democracy at Freedom House. They are co-authors of Freedom on the Net 2021: The Global Drive to Control Big Tech.

Excerpt from:

Second Opinion: How governments are coming for Big Tech - Los Angeles Times

Through her leaks and Congressional testimony, Frances Haugen, the Facebook Whistleblower, revealed a lot about Facebook's operation. Many of these revelations are things we've long suspected but now have proof of: Facebook focuses on growthof users and time spent on its platformsto the exclusion of everything else. For Facebook, growth trumps all, even the health and safety of its most vulnerable users.

In her testimony, Haugen explained that at Facebook, metrics are king. Facebooks growth division works to increase "user engagement," and it succeeds. This is a circular process: Facebook identifies content that users "engage" with and promotes it, leading to more engagement. Facebook's automated systems don't evaluate what is being engaged with they just identify and rank materials by engagement itself. So, according to Haugen, the automated scoring system will rank successful bullying as "engaging" alongside anything else that garners a lot of attention. Politicians who make extreme statements get more engagement, and are therefore ranked higher by Facebook, and are therefore seen by more Facebook users.

Its not like Facebook could discriminate between good and bad content even if it wanted to. Haugen says the "AI" Facebook uses to evaluate content is bad at posts in English and worse at posts in other languages. Facebook focused on scale over safety and chooses profit over safety.

These aren't mere prioritiesthey are reflected in the incentives Facebook offers to its engineers, designers and product managers, whose bonuses are tied to the quantity of meaningful social interactions (AKA "engagement") their products generate.

Whats more, Facebook isn't content to milk its existing, aging user base for "engagement." Facebooks on again/off again plan for an "Instagram for kids" is a bid to grow its users by habituating people to its products at an early age, normalizing this kind of engagement-maximization as an intrinsic element of social interactions, including on play-dates. Haugen doesnt believe Facebooks "pausing" of this plan is permanent. She believes theyre just waiting for the heat to die down.

For Facebook, the heat never dies down. The company is always in the middle of one spectacular scandal or another. Haugens testimony confirms what we long suspected Facebook's neverending crises are the result of a rotten corporate culture and awful priorities.

Ms. Haugen told Congress that she thinks Facebook should be reformed, not broken up. But Facebooks broken system is fueled by a growth-at-any-cost model. The number of Facebook users and the increasing depth of the data it gathers about them is its biggest selling point. In other words, Facebooks badness is inextricably tied to its bigness.

EFFs position is that if when a companys badness is inseparable from its bigness, it's time to consider breaking that company up.

EFFs position is that if when a companys badness is inseparable from its bigness, it's time to consider breaking that company up.

Much of this latest Facebook controversy concerns Instagram adsspecifically, which ads it shows to young people, and what effect these have on their mental health.

Remember, though: Facebook didnt build Instagram. It bought it, explicitly to neutralize a competitor. That raises the question of whether that merger should have been permitted in the first place, and whether it should be unwound today.

Facebook bought Instagram because it was a threat. Instagram was growing, by attracting the younger users who were leaving Facebook. Facebook's research showed that young users viewed it as a service for older people. Facebook's dwindling attractiveness caused friction after the company's merger with Instagram, as Facebookers seethed with jealousy of their Instagram colleagues. Facebook's corporate suspicion of Instagram eventually forced Instagram's founders out of the company, leaving everything about Instagram up to Facebook. Facebooks focus on engagement, its insularity, its need to pull all services under the umbrella of the core Facebook appall of that is rooted in its growth-at-any-cost mentality.

For most companies, the goal is to maximize profit. Without meaningful checks, that impulse can run amok, leading to unethical, abusive and, eventually, illegal conduct. The Facebook story, with its repeat offenses despite record fines, consent decrees, and market forces show that these simply do not do the trick.

By establishing breakups as a serious possibility that companies must consider, we can discipline them, so that they police themselves better, and we can open up space for more creative regulatory solutions. And if that doesn't succeed, we can break them up, creating more competition that will discipline their behavior.

Breakups aren't and never will be the first line of defense for every problem with tech. They can be complicated and expensive, and history has shown that when a breakup is not followed by enforcement, a monopolys splintered parts can simply reconstitute themselves. The 1984 breakup of AT&T was the result of nearly two decades of work by the Department of Justice, and it led to a radical diversification of the market. But in the two decades that followed, lax merger review and deregulation allowed the telecom market to concentrate into just a handful of big players once again.

We can and should pursue multiple strategies that will get us to a place where we dont have to worry every morning about what Facebook is doing to us today.

Breakups are a powerful tool. For breakups to be effective, we also need other tools, tooa whole toolbox full of ways to keep companies broken up and ensure a healthy supply of innovative competitors. That means enhancing merger reviews, removing barriers to interoperability, and well-crafted privacy laws to protect consumers and level the playing field.

Continue reading here:

What the Facebook Whistleblower Tells Us About Big Tech - EFF

Perhaps the best chance of a crackdown on the industry is if President Biden and his administration act forcefully. He has not yet put his weight behind any bills, but has placed some of the industrys leading critics in top regulatory jobs. Lina Khan, the chair of the F.T.C., and Jonathan Kanter, the nominee to run the Justice Departments antitrust division, have promised to hobble the power of the companies.

Facebook took a big hit this week, but they are capable of taking many hits just as the tobacco industry was, said Allan Brandt, a professor at Harvard and an expert on the rise and decline of the tobacco industry.

It took more than 50 years from the first published research about the dangers of cigarettes, and more than a decade after a whistle-blower shared internal documents proving that the tobacco companies hid its knowledge of the ills of their products, before there was meaningful government regulation, he said.

There will be regulation for Facebook and other tech companies, Mr. Brandt said, but Im skeptical of a route to successful regulation anytime soon.

The European Union has for years been more aggressive against the tech companies than the United States, on issues including antitrust and data privacy. This past weeks testimony from the Facebook whistle-blower, Frances Haugen, intensified calls to adopt proposals that would impose tougher rules for how Facebook and other internet companies police their platforms, and add stricter competition rules in an effort to diminish their dominance over the digital economy. The laws could be adopted as early as next year.

But in Washington, a key impediment to legislation is that Democrats and Republicans view the issues of tech power and speech on social media differently. Democrats want to address the spread of misinformation and the amplification of harmful political rhetoric, while Republicans argue that Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media platforms censor conservative views.

And when it comes to questions about whether to break up the companies, many Democrats see antitrust action as a way to slow the most powerful tech platforms and address data privacy, security and misinformation. Some Republicans say that there is plenty of competition in the industry, and that breaking up the companies would be an example of government overreach.

Follow this link:

Lawmakers See Path to Rein In Tech, but It Isnt Smooth - The New York Times

Demonstrators protesting the military takeover of Myanmar flash the three-fingered symbol of resistance in Yangon, Myanmar, on April 4. Electoral disputes have led officials to shut off internet service, censor social media platforms and digital news outlets, and physically assault internet users. (Associated Press)

Around the world, governments are challenging the immense power of Big Tech, causing politically motivated showdowns between their officials and tech companies to become increasingly commonplace.

In mid-September, just as voting began in Russias parliamentary elections, Apple and Google capitulated to ongoing government demands to remove from their online stores a smartphone app created by allies of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. To channel support away from the Kremlins preferred candidate, the app improved strategic coordination among voters and advised them about which candidates were most likely to defeat those backed by the ruling party.

The companies alarming decision fits a larger, global pattern. Governments around the world are increasingly wielding their regulatory power to subdue free expression online and gain greater access to private information. To respond to the immense power of the tech industry without emboldening digital repression by the state, regulations must make human rights and democratic values a priority.

The use of regulation for political ends was on full display in Russia, as state authorities coerced the two California-based tech titans into censorship amid tightly controlled elections, limiting the ability of opponents of Vladimir Putins government to organize.

Set against the backdrop of an 11-year decline in global internet freedom and a 15-year decline in overall democratic rights worldwide as identified in Freedom Houses research the question of how much and what kind of regulatory power governments should have over technology companies is both urgent and delicate.

In a recently released Freedom House report on internet freedom, we found that 48 of 70 countries surveyed pursued at least one form of regulatory action on online content, personal data or competition against technology firms over the last year. More than a dozen new laws threaten the future of free expression online. More governments are pressuring companies to remove broad swaths of content, often under the pretext of protecting users from misinformation, incitement to hatred or material that is harmful to minors. Their true aim is to suppress anti-government speech, investigative reporting and expressions of LGBTQ+ identity and other posts that may be politically disfavored.

Story continues

Some government leaders have taken the opposite tack and attempted to ban platforms from moderating content, which could allow for the proliferation of false or hateful propaganda and threats of violence to drown out authentic discussion and debate. Only in a few cases do laws require companies to be more transparent over their content moderation, advertising practices and use of algorithms, and provide content producers with an avenue for appeal when their content is restricted.

Dozens of laws introduced to regulate corporate data management are also ripe for government exploitation. Many require companies to undermine end-to-end encryption a security method that prevents data from being accessed by anyone other than sender and recipient in their products, or mandate that user data be stored on servers located within the country. In practice, weakened encryption and domestic data storage expand government ability to access peoples most intimate information. Even laws that ostensibly enshrine the rights of users to control their data often contain vague surveillance exemptions for national security.

More positively, industry regulators around the globe have also displayed a zeal for cracking down on anti-competitive and abusive commercial practices, and for fining major tech firms for failing to protect data and exploiting their market power. A few countries, such as Germany, have introduced measures that would prohibit companies from denying interoperability and data portability.

But competition policy also can be crafted and used for political gain. For instance, Chinese regulators have been among the most aggressive in addressing monopolistic practices by the countrys tech giants. However, their interventions such as forced company restructurings and politicized pressure on business leaders have raised concerns that the government is more interested in reining in these companies autonomy and influence than in fair competition and consumer protection.

The global drive to control Big Tech is occurring in tandem with a historic crackdown on internet freedom. In 56 of the countries covered by our report, officials arrested or convicted people for their online speech over the last year.

Governments suspended internet access in at least 20 countries, and 21 others blocked access to social media platforms, most often during times of political turmoil such as protests and elections. Authorities in at least 45 countries are suspected of obtaining spyware or data-extraction technology from private vendors, giving themselves unprecedented, extrajudicial access to private communications.

Some of the most illustrative cases of digital repression in the last year occurred in Myanmar, Belarus and Uganda, where electoral disputes led officials to shut off internet service, censor social media platforms and independent digital news outlets, and physically assault internet users.

With so many aspects of our lives moving online, new internet regulations are likely to have a lasting impact on our ability to express ourselves freely, share information across borders and hold the powerful to account.

We need to ensure that regulation does not become a tool for governments around the world to exert greater control over the digital sphere. Advocates for a free and open internet including those from governments, civil society and the private sector should push for new laws that prevent power from accumulating in the hands of a few dominant players, whether in the private sector or the state. That means making free expression a priority in content moderation and requiring platforms to be far more transparent and accountable when they do remove speech.

Data privacy laws should provide users with control over their information, institute safeguards against government surveillance and protect encryption. And policies that govern competition should foster innovation to allow people to make informed decisions about their online experiences.

Regulation is not a panacea, but well-designed rules and incentives can ensure the internet retains its emancipatory power, with all its potential to drive personal and societal progress.

Adrian Shahbaz is director for technology and democracy at Freedom House. Allie Funk is senior research analyst for technology and democracy at Freedom House. They are co-authors of Freedom on the Net 2021: The Global Drive to Control Big Tech.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Continued here:

Second Opinion: Governments are coming for big tech. Here's what it could mean for your rights online - Yahoo News