Category Archives: Big Tech

It is an unfortunate characteristic of new industries that they tend quickly to become dominated by a small number of big players. This is particularly the case with tech, where powerful network effects are at work; the more people that use them, the more they attract others in search of compatibility. Monopoly is naturally occurring.

Yet to make the case for breakup, you have to demonstrate a positive benefit to consumers, competition, and innovation. This can only ever be supposition. It is not obvious, for instance, why separating Amazons servers business from its retail operation, or Facebook from Instagram, would help these objectives.

But please, no more pleading the national champions cause. An idea I naively imagined had been put to bed by the debilitating experience of state directed industrial strategy in the immediate postwar period is regrettably making something of a comeback, not just as a defence of Big Tech in an age of superpower conflict, but as a desirable economic goal in itself.

Even in Britain, we see evidence of such thinking. That the UK should jeopardise a decent trade deal with the EU for the sake of remaining free to dole out state aid to political obsessions andfavoured champions, as Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister's chief adviser, seems minded,is beyond ridiculous. Governments do not have a good record in backing winners.

Nor is it a good idea for governments to hitch their wagonsto any particular corporate interest; to deliberately favour one over another is not just corrupt, it alsodiscourages competition, and therefore innovation and diversity in the economy, ultimately making it less resilient.

Sometimes regulators need to step in to ensure markets remain open and honest. To maintain the publics trust, the tech giants must learn to self regulate and pay their taxes, or they will indeed end up going the same way as the railroad barons, AT&T, IBM and other targets of Americas penchant for taking down the economically overmighty.

With great power comes responsibility; most of the evidence is that Bezos, Zuckerberg et al have taken these lessons on board.

View original post here:

We like and value Big Tech, so why are we so determined to do it down? - Telegraph.co.uk

The coronavirus pandemic might have slammed the broader market in the June quarter but tech isnt expected to have seen much effect on earnings.

For the sector, second-quarter earnings are expected to be down 10.9% on 0.3% lower revenues. But thats far better compared to the overall earnings picture. This is because total earnings for S&P 500 companies are projected to decline 42.9% on 9.6% lower revenues (read more: The Technology Sector Shows its Earnings Power Amid Coronavirus).

Thus, investors are now keeping an eye on four big tech companies in terms of market capitalization that are slated to report their June-quarter earnings on Jul 30, after the closing bell. Apple Inc. AAPL, Amazon.com, Inc. AMZN, Alphabet Inc. GOOGL and Facebook, Inc. FB worth nearly $5 trillion are mostly expected to come up with encouraging earnings results.

The big four are expected to have benefitted from the coronavirus-led shutdown measures as some of their businesses gained immensely from consumers, mostly working and learning from home. At the same time, these companies have been gaining immensely from secular trends like cloud computing and robust telecommunications infrastructure demand for which skyrocketed amid the health crisis.

The big four tech stocks along with Microsoft Corporation MSFT have in fact returned 49% over the past year, whereas the rest of the companies in the S&P 500 cohort have barely moved. Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist at Credit Suisse, noted that net margins of the big four and Microsoft taken together are 17.3% on average in the trailing 12 months, which is 70% higher than the rest of the S&P 500 companies. And profits of the five stocks were up 3.1% in the same period against a 9.2% decline for the other S&P 500 companies.

But if financial results for the to-be-reported quarter fall short of expectations, it could cause big market gyrations in after-hour trading and again on Jul 31. After all, their sheer size no doubt will have a big impact on the market and could easily decide whether the bourses will continue to hit new highs. Nevertheless, Golub has calmed investors concerns by saying that these companies have strong cash positions and their higher margins should certainly help them post better results in periods of market stress. Let us, thus, take a look at how they will fare this time around

One of the areas of Apples business that investors expect to have shone in the June quarter is the services segment. It has always been Apples most lucrative segment in terms of gross profit, and investors anticipate lockdown measures and social-distancing norms in the quarter to have fuelled rapid growth in the segment that includes the App Store and Apple Pay.

But Apples fortunes are heavily dependent on iPhone sales. And the companys fiscal third-quarter iPhone sales are believed to have remained muted due to sluggish demand in China. Thus, Apples sales are expected at $51.94 billion, indicating a year-over-year decline of 3.5%. Earnings per share are also likely to come in at $2.03, suggesting a 6.9% decline year over year. Traditionally, Apples third-quarter fiscal results are always the weakest. The Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) company currently has an Earnings ESP of +0.72%. Per our proven model, the combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 increases the chances of an earnings beat. You can see the complete list of todays Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

With majority of retail stores remaining closed in the June quarter, online sales picked up lockdown and social-distancing measures. Whats more, financial relief packages by the government and an uptick in employment rates increased disposable income in the quarter, something that boosted online sales.

Separately, Amazons focus on cloud computing might have improved the e-commerce giants financial results. This is because as majority of people remotely worked during the quarter ending June 2020, most companies had to move a bulk portion of their workloads to the cloud. The Zacks Rank #3 company currently has an Earnings ESP of +107.82%.

Story continues

The pandemic helped Facebook increase user engagement with its several social media platforms as people had to stay at home amid stringent lockdown measures imposed to curtail the spread of the deadly virus.

Therefore, Facebook is widely expected to have seen a surge in the usage of its services like Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp in the second quarter.

Thus, the companys expected revenues for the June quarter is $17.29 billion, indicating a year-over-year increase of 2.4%. Similarly, the company expects earnings per share of $1.44, indicating a 58.2% increase from the same period last year. Whats more, the Zacks Rank #3 company has an Earnings ESP of +4.86%.

The numbers werent encouraging for Alphabet in the first quarter. But three months later, Alphabets shares went up nearly 21%. So, what happened? This is because the stay-at-home economy in the second quarter buoyed Alphabets YouTube and Cloud services that provided home-based access to the outside world.

However, Alphabet had to bear significant costs in providing cloud services. Needless to say, rising litigations across the world due to its dominant position in search also remained a headwind in the June quarter. As a result, the Zacks Rank #3 company currently has an Earnings ESP of -1.12%.

Each was hand-picked by a Zacks expert as the #1 favorite stock to gain +100% or more in 2020. Each comes from a different sector and has unique qualities and catalysts that could fuel exceptional growth.

Most of the stocks in this report are flying under Wall Street radar, which provides a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor.

Today, See These 5 Potential Home Runs >>

Click to get this free report Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) : Free Stock Analysis Report Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) : Free Stock Analysis Report Apple Inc. (AAPL) : Free Stock Analysis Report Facebook, Inc. (FB) : Free Stock Analysis Report Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) : Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on Zacks.com click here. Zacks Investment Research

Go here to see the original:

All Eyes on Big Tech Earnings: Here's What to Expect - Yahoo Finance

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr argues there is a growing and bipartisan consensus to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is in the spotlight after Google allegedly targeted conservative websites ZeroHedge and the Federalist.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., on Tuesday introduced a bill that would remove Section 230 protections for Big Tech companies that "display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them."

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act ensures internet platforms and social media websites are not held liable for content published by third-party users, which includeadvertisers.

"Big Techs manipulative advertising regime comes with a massive hidden price tag for consumers while providing almost no return to anyone but themselves," Hawley said in a Tuesday statement. "From privacy violations to harming children to suppression of speech, the ramifications are very real."

He added that the manipulative ads seen on social media and other platforms "are not what Congress had in mind when passing Section 230, and now is the time to put a stop to this abuse."

SHOULD SECTION 230 BE REVISED?

One example when a website used Section 230 to defend its role in publishing problematic ads to its platform is a 2015 lawsuit brought against Backpage owner Village Voice Media Holdings.The suit titled J.S. v. Village Voice alleges that Backpage.com posted advertisements that resulted in the sexual abuse of three underaged girls.

"J.S. allegedly was raped multiple times by adult customers who responded to the advertisements. J.S. filed a complaint alleging state law claims for damages against Backpage ... asserting claims for negligence, outrage, sexual exploitation of children, ratification/vicarious liability, unjust enrichment" and more, the case opinion from a Washington state courtreads.

WHAT IF SECTION 230 IS REVOKED?

Backpage tried to dismiss claims in thetrial court on the grounds of Section 230 immunity,but the court denied the move, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that Backpage helped develop the ads and was therefore subject to liability. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with Backpage.com in October 2017.

A person working on a laptop in North Andover, Mass. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File)

Hawley, a staunch critic of Big Tech and social media companies, also accused tech giants,in a press release announcing the proposed legislation,like Facebook and Google of tracking users without their consent for the purpose of profiting off ads

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Section 230 has sparked debate recently along party lines; some Democrats believe the law offers unjust protections to platforms that allow third-party users, including President Trump, to post problematic or harmful content, while some Republicans argue that the law protects social media companies that they allege actively seek to suppress certain political viewpoints or users.

Hawley, for example, introduced another Section 230-related bill in June that would require internet platforms to "submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral," according to a release.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

See the article here:

Sen. Hawley introduces bill to remove Big Tech's Section 230 ad immunity - Fox Business

As the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google prepare forhistorictestimony today in front of the House antitrust committee and withlegal chargesexpected soon I have a request: Before we dismiss the possibility of breaking them up, can we please stop comparing the worlds most powerful companies to eggs?

The current Chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission stated that after Facebook and Instagram have integrated their systems following their merger, splitting up the two social networks becomes more difficult because the eggs are scrambled. The U.S. Department of Justice antitrust chief under President Obama made a similar observation that it can be very difficult, or impossible, to unscramble the eggs. Over decades, references to this breakfast plate have repeatedly appeared in official speeches, scholarly articles, and judicial rulings.

The metaphor is misguided. Businesses routinely break themselves up. More than3,000 voluntary divestitures occur each year, amounting to abouta third of all mergers and acquisitions. Many are enormous. Not that long ago, Hewlett-Packard split itselfdown the middle to createtwo independent Fortune 100 companies. Last year Fox sold its movie business to Disney for$71 billion.

In other words, while most in the government and academia see breakups as radical and extreme, leading business executives see them as astandard part of corporate governance. I know because I have advised executives at several of the nations largest companies on massive reorganizations. If we must analogize monopolies to eggs, at the very least we should recognize that while nobody unscrambles eggs, we regularly carve up omelets after theyre prepared.

This seemingly harmless metaphor expresses a potentially devastating worldview that helps explain why the government has not broken up any of the largest U.S. companies since 1984. Thats when the Department of Justicesplit the AT&T monopoly into seven pieces, a move widely celebrated especially byconsumers who were paying over eight dollars for a five-minute call from Washington, D.C. to New York.

Today, however, even many leadingleft-leaning intellectualscalling for more aggressive antitrust enforcement opposesplitting up Big Tech due to breakups perceived messiness. They prefer other remedies, like mandating access. Access mandates leave the monopoly in place but require it to help competitors. For instance, rather than forcing Facebook to divest its previous acquisition, Instagram, the social network could be required to allow users to transfer their accounts or post simultaneously to other social networks.

One clear problem with this and other alternative remedies is that theyare unlikely to deter anticompetitive behavior. At trial,companies almost always fight for something other than breakups. Weaker remedies give CEOs incentives to build monopolies. Equally problematic is that these other remedies are extremely difficult and expensive. For example, requiring Amazon to share its platform fairly with competitors would require ongoing monitoring by the government over decades to ensure compliance.

In contrast, breakups are cleaner and cheaper because they provide a one-off event after which the government can move on. By instead pushing antitrust toward government-heavy remedies, the resistance to breakups leaves antitrust with only unattractive options. Unattractive remedies mean enforcers are less likely to take any action.

In other words, the animosity toward breakups has enfeebled the very institution of antitrust in America.

Of course, while breakups of Facebook and Instagram or Google and Waze may make sense, there are limits to how much some of these tech companies can be carved up without harming consumers. And antitrust breakups involve considerable costs in executing the reorganization. As a result, some caution is appropriate in choosing them as the remedy, and access mandates have a place in the antitrust arsenal. It would be a mistake to launch into an indiscriminate breakup rampage of all concentrated industries.

In weighing those costs, however, authorities should recognize that even private divestitures require tremendous organizational expenses. The key in both public and private breakups is not to let the inevitable reorganization costs prevent economic progress. In 1911, John D. Rockefellers lawyers argued that breaking up his oil monopoly would not only be dangerous to the industry, but calamitous to shareholders. Similar arguments were made before theAT&T breakup.

ButRockefellers wealth skyrocketed after the Standard Oil breakup, and AT&T shareholders who held onto their stock earnedhigh returns. Thats because buyers of broken up monopolies pay for the carved-up pieces. And smaller,nimbler companies can better adapt to changing markets. More importantly, nobody can deny thatthose U.S. industries subsequently flourished and led the world.

A better antitrust analogy would be to firefighting.The Forest Serviceregularly manages controlled burns, which prevent catastrophic wildfires and enable ecosystems to thrive. Occasional breakups that have costs in the short-term can help make markets healthier in the long run. The harms to our economy from large monopolies are far more certain than the speculative fears of messy breakups.

Rory Van Loo is a professor at Boston University and the author, most recently, ofIn Defense of Breakups: Administering a Radical Remedy. He previously advised multinational corporate executives on mergers and acquisitions. Follow him on Twitter @RoryVanLoo

More:

Stop with the egg metaphor in discussing Big Tech break-ups | TheHill - The Hill

"Advertising" and "marketing" -- andespecially their use of "data," "targeting," and the potential for "abuse" -- were a big part of the five-and-a-half hours of Congressional testimony during the "Big Tech" company hearing onWednesday, according to a MediaPost analysis of the transcribed testimony published by C-SPAN.

While "competition" (118 references) and "antitrust" (21) were the dominant themes cited, "data"(96) ranked as the second-biggest theme, followed by "privacy" (42) and "advertising" (37).

Interestingly, "consumers" (31) were an also-ran in the discussion, although there were 37references to "Americans" and one reference to "voters."

In terms of sentiment, "good" (21) ranked ahead of "harm" (29), although when "abuse" (6) and "bad" (6) are added in, it was morenegative than positive.

advertisement

advertisement

"Pay" (27) ranked midway, just ahead of "election" (26), but "journalism" (11) seemed to be an afterthought.

As a stand-alone keyword reference, "Google" (223)was the dominant Big Tech firm reference, followed by "Amazon" (195), which was making its first appearance before Congress, and then "Facebook" (152) and "Apple" (104).

Google subsidiary"YouTube" (38) ranked ahead of Facebook's "Instagram" (29) and "WhatsApp" (9), and there were nine references to "Twitter" and one to "TikTok," where were not present.

Facebook's MarkZuckerberg (67) had the most CEO references, followed by Amazon's Jeff Bezos (55), Apple's Tim Cook (25) and Google's Sundar Pichai (24).

There was one reference to Twitter's Jack Dorsey, whowas not present.

There were 17 references to "Trump," 15 to "President," five to "Biden."

There were 96 references to "America," 24 to "China," and one to "Russia."

There weretwo references to Cambridge Analytica.

There were four references to the Facebook ad "boycott."

There was no reference to "Section 230" of the Communications Decency Act.

View original post here:

'Advertising,' 'Data' And 'Targeting' Loom Large During Big Tech Hearings 07/30/2020 - MediaPost Communications

This hearing is timely and important, said Maurice Stucke, a former prosecutor in the Justice Departments antitrust division who now teaches law at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Its taking place not in isolation, but amid increased scrutiny of the dominant technology platforms from around the world.

Stucke believes the hearing is happening at a critical juncture, when authorities are beginning to grapple with the sweeping market power amassed by a handful of digital platforms, only to realize that current antitrust laws are inadequate and in need of change.

All four companies appearing at Wednesdays hearing are the targets of ongoing antitrust investigations by the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission or bipartisan coalitions of state attorneys general.

The emerging consensus is that first, antitrust scrutiny is a necessary but not sufficient component to address the multiple risks that these powerful platforms pose; second, the antitrust laws need to be updated; and third, we need to go beyond antitrust to a regulatory framework that addresses the risks posed to consumer protection and privacy, Stucke said.

But there are others who see the antitrust scrutiny of major technology companies as misplaced. Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, which advocates limited antitrust regulation of digital platforms, is skeptical of using antitrust enforcement to rein in or break up the companies, as some have suggested doing.

View original post here:

Big Tech antitrust hearing could be colossal or mere theater - Roll Call

Three "big techs" are schedule to report their second-quarter 2020 results this week: Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) on Wednesday, July 29, followed by Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN) and Google parent Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) on Thursday. All three report after the market close.

The earnings results for these massive technology companies will likely be even more closely followed than usual since the second quarter should include the full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. The economic effects of the crisis largely began in March, the last month of the first quarter.

Here's what to watch in their reports.

Image source: Getty Images.

Shares of the social networking behemoth have bounced back after plunging along with the overall market beginning in February, when anxiety surfaced over the potential economic effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. In 2020, Facebook stock has gained 13.9% through July 27, versus the S&P 500's 1.4% return.

Here's what Wall Street is expecting:

Revenue

$16.9 billion

$17.4 billion

3%

Earnings per share (EPS)

$0.91

$1.39

53%

Data sources: Facebook and Yahoo! Finance. YOY = year over year.

The company didn't provide revenue guidance for the quarter due to uncertainty surrounding the pandemic. But when it released Q1 results on April 29, it provided a current snapshot of revenue performance in Q2:

After the initial steep decrease in advertising revenue in March, we have seen signs of stability reflected in the first three weeks of April, where advertising revenue has been approximately flat compared to the same period a year ago, down from the 17% year-over-year growth in the first quarter of 2020. The April trends reflect weakness across all of our user geographies as most of our major countries have had some sort of shelter-in-place guidelines in effect.

While Wall Street expects EPS to jump 53% year over year, this number could be misleading. The year-ago period included a $2 billion legal expense related to the probe by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) into Facebook's data and privacy practices, as well as a one-time $1.1 billion income tax expense. Excluding these items, EPS was $1.99. So adjusted EPS is expected to decline 30%.

In the first quarter, Facebook's total revenue rose 18% year over year to $17.7 billion. Net income increased 102% to $4.9 billion, which translated to EPS doubling to $1.71. That result fell somewhat short of the $1.75 Wall Street was expecting.

The year-ago period included a $3 billion legal expense related to the FTC mentioned previously. Excluding this item, earnings declined in Q1 from the year-ago period.

Image source: Amazon.

In 2020, Amazon shares are up a whopping 65.7% through July 27. Investors have driven up shares largely due to optimism that the pandemic-driven surge in online shopping would benefit Amazon, at least from a sales standpoint. And, indeed, that happened in the first quarter.

Investors are likely counting on revenue in the second quarter getting an even larger boost from the pandemic.

Here are expectations for the top and bottom lines:

Metric

Q2 2019 Result

Amazon's Q2 2020 Guidance

Amazon's Projected Change (YOY)

Wall Street's Q2 2020 Consensus Estimate

Wall Street's Projected Change (YOY)

Revenue

$63.4 billion

$75 billion to $81 billion

18% to 28%

$81.1 billion

28%

Earnings per share (EPS)

$5.22

N/A

N/A

$1.32

(75%)

Data sources: Amazon and Yahoo! Finance. Note: Amazon does not provide earnings guidance.

As to expected operating performance, Amazon guided for an operatingloss of $1.5 billion to operatingincome of $1.5 billion. The guidance includes approximately $4 billion of costs related to COVID-19, including expenses associated with ramping up capacity and keeping employees safe.

For context, in the year-ago period, the company posted operating income of $3.1 billion.

In the first quarter, Amazon's revenue rose 26% year over year to $75.45 billion, easily topping the $72.95 billion that analysts had expected. EPS fell 29% to $5.01, missing the $6.25 consensus estimate. Analysts may have underestimated the COVID-related expenses, which CFO Brian Olsavsky said on the Q1 earnings call amounted to more than $600 million.

Beyond the headline numbers, investors should focus on Amazon Web Services' growth since the cloud computing service is the company's profit engine.

In 2020, shares of the Google parent are up 14.5% (Class A) and 14.4% (Class C) through July 27, versus the broader market's 1.4% return.

The company doesn't provide guidance, but here's what the Street is expecting:

Revenue

$38.9 billion

$37.4 billion

(4%)

Earnings per share (EPS)

$14.21

$8.23

(42%)

Data sources: Alphabet and Yahoo! Finance.

Analysts expect Alphabet's revenue to slightly contract due to a slowdown in ad sales, driven by large chunks of the world's economy being shut down during much of Q2.

In the first quarter, Alphabet's revenue rose 13% year over year to $41.2 billion. The company's performance was strong during the first two months of the quarter, but then slowed significantly in March, CFO Ruth Porat said in the earnings release.

Adjusted for one-time items, Q1 EPS declined 17% to $9.87. That result missed the $10.32 Wall Street was expecting.

Once again, Facebook is scheduled to report Q2 results on Wednesday after the market close, with Amazon and Alphabet slated to report on Thursday after the closing bell.

Original post:

Big Tech Earnings This Week: Facebook, Amazon, and Alphabet - Motley Fool

Marta L. Tellado, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET July 29, 2020

We would never tolerate age, sex or race discrimination at a grocery store or car lot, but we have allowed it to run rampant in the digital world.

The leaders of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have some serious explaining to do about bias and discrimination when they appear Wednesday at an antitrust hearingbefore the House Judiciary Committee.

The abuse of trust by the platform-based companies we rely on most has largely flown under the radar as a global pandemic heightens and highlights fissures in our society.But our data and our choices continue to be manipulated in problematic ways often by algorithms that subtly introduce bias into the prices we pay and the information and options made available to us. It is essential that we hold our digital gatekeepers accountable.

The algorithms at issue have a veritable fire hose of our data at their disposal,and they arent the neutral equations we might assume them to be. They are the product of humans, and because of that they have a tendency to perpetuate human biases.

To cite just three examples:

In 2017, Consumer Reports and ProPublica discovered that drivers living in predominantly minority urban neighborhoods were charged higher auto insurance premiums on average than drivers with similar safety records in nonminority neighborhoods with comparable levels of risk.

In 2018, software created by Amazon to help companies identify the most promising job candidates was discovered to be biased against women, according to Reuters. The algorithm had learned to spot "good" rsums on a diet of examples heavily skewed toward males.

Apples new credit card came under investigation in November, after a customer complained that its lending algorithm offered him a line of credit 20 times higher than it offered his wife even though hercredit score was better than his.

We would never tolerate that sort of blatant discrimination if it happened at a neighborhood grocery store or a car lot, but we have quietly allowed it run rampant in the digital marketplace without oversight or accountability.

A smartphone screen with GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) apps on September 28, 2017, in Hd-Bazouges, France.(Photo: Damien Meyer/AFP via Getty Images)

A follow-up joint investigation recently conducted by Consumer Reports and The Markup revealed how better data can alter the power relationship between company and consumer. The latest example of how algorithms, however unintentionally, negatively affect our lives and our pocketbooks: Allstate, the fourth largest auto insurer in the country, proposed big premium hikes exclusively for customers whoits formulas concluded were less likely than others to shop around.

In targeting what the investigation concluded was a suckers list of drivers deemed by an algorithm to be less likely to switch providers, Allstate used factors that have nothing to do with consumers driving records and their risk for filing a claim.In this case, it was middle-ageconsumers who ended up being discriminated against for no reason other than their shopping tendencies. The result was they wereovercharged quite a bit more for the same coverage.

Tech fail:He was arrested because of a computer error. Now he wants to fix the system.

Facial recognition algorithms used in police departments have been found to misidentify African American and Asian faces up to 100 times as often as Caucasian faces, leading to false arrests and baseless confrontations.

Boston is among the municipalities that have recently taken steps to prevent facial recognition technology from being used by city agencies, including the police. Amazon has imposed a one-year suspension on the sale of its Rekognition software to law enforcement.

Progress has been made on this front in part because of efforts byJoy Buolamwini, a computer scientist and founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, and others to call attention to the very real potential harms of this technology.

In the years ahead, algorithms are poised to influence an ever larger share of what we pay, receive, see, learn and decide between from the cost of goods and services to the headlines and search results that do and do not make it into our personal feeds.As their influence rises, the question becomes more critical: How can we guard against algorithmic biases and hold our tech giants accountable for maintaining fairness in the digital marketplace?

So far, we havent pursued policies to ensure that fairness,or even transparency for that matter. We havent created avenues of recourse for consumers who get the short end of the stick. Wealso know that industry thus far cant be counted on to self-regulate in many cases, they arent even aware that potential discrimination is going on until after journalists or customers happen to unravel it.Too often, the watchdogs arent watching closely enough.

Failure to enforce: Despite COVID-19 pandemic, tech giants still profit from anti-vaccination movement

The good news is that consumers hold tremendous power to set us on a better path. By wielding our collective influence, we can press for policymakers to enact new laws and standards to bring fairness and transparency to the hidden world of algorithms. Companies should not be permitted to use "proxy" data, like users' ZIPcodes or credit scores, in algorithms where it isn't relevant these are data points that frequently lead to discriminatory outputs. And we need vigorous oversight and enforcement of laws that prohibit bias.

As the CEOs of the most powerful tech companies take questions, we must get answers on platform accountability and plans to limit discrimination. Many biases may still be hardwired in our society, but that doesnt mean we have to sit idly by as they replicate themselves in the digital economy. It is within our power and, indeed, it is our responsibility to ensure that the digital world evolves in the direction of greater fairness and greater trust.

Marta L. Tellado is the president and chief executive officer of Consumer Reports. Follow her on Twitter: @MLTellado

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/29/big-tech-abuses-consumers-stop-online-discrimination-column/5525703002/

See the original post here:

Biased Big Tech algorithms limit our lives and choices. Stop the online discrimination. - USA TODAY

In 2018, when Google engineer Liz Fong-Jones was rallying fellow employees to oppose the companys contract to do artificial intelligence work for the U.S. Department of Defense, she turned to Coworker.org, a nonprofit that supports employee activism.

Coworker helped Fong-Jones, who had no experience as a labor organizer, set up petitions and gave her access to experts who were skilled at managing workplace actions. The effort succeeded: In the wake of employee protests, Google opted to stop selling AI software to the Pentagon.

Although Fong-Jones wasnt initially aware of it, Coworker was backed by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay who has quietly become one of Facebook, Amazon and Google's biggest antagonists. His advocacy and investment organization, Omidyar Network, has supported a slew of efforts to reduce the power and influence of big tech companies, which he believes are harming consumers and stifling public debate.

See the rest here:

The Tech Billionaire Marshaling the Fight Against Big Tech - The Information

Dow Jones Industrial Average rises 131 pointsApple hits record high

Apple shares rose 2.13% to a record high as Wall Street ananalyst and investors cheered a slew of announcements from the tech giant. One analyst hiked his price target on the stock to $400 per share from $325 per share. MicrosoftandAmazon also hit all-time highs, rising 0.67% and 1.86%, respectively.

Tuesday's gains came after a wild overnight session amid comments fromWhite House trade advisor Peter Navarro. In an interview with Fox News, Navarro said the U.S.-China trade deal was "over." The comment sent stock futures tumbling. However, Navarro later clarified his comments "had nothing at all to do with the Phase I trade deal, which continues in place." This clarification sent stock futures back higher.

Weekly jobless claims data are set for release Wednesday morning.

Subscribe to CNBC PRO for exclusive insights and analysis, and live business day programming from around the world.

View post:

Here's what happened to the stock market on Tuesday - CNBC