Matt Gaetz has railed against Big Tech companies. If he becomes Trump's attorney general, he'd have legal power to act on his complaints.

AI is the latest magnet for the speedy and the greedy.

Podcasting is having a moment. Maybe, if we stretch just a bit, a year. And possibly even an era.

Twitter just bought podcasting platform Breaker, the app that took podcasting and made it social. And what began as a trend — Spotify buying podcast platforms Anchor and Gimlet in 2019 — is turning into a torrent as many of the other big players in technology are buying podcasts, podcasters, podcasting tools, and podcast publishing platforms.

Tech moves in eras.

There was the era of PCs. The era of search. The era of social, and the era of smartphones. None of these necessarily roll over and go away: like radio or TV or magazines, they adapt, morph, and persist as new eras and new paradigms take precedence. But each era focuses innovation and investment and attention in a new space.

Today podcasting is one of those spaces.

De grootste smartphonefabrikanten waren vorige week allemaal in het nieuws, met kwartaalcijfers van Apple en Samsung en nieuwe toptelefoons van Xiaomi en Honor. De grote Amerikaanse techbedrijven presenteerden ook hun derdekwartaalresultaten, zonder tekenen van een vertraging in hun wereldwijde groei...

Sean Goedecke, Nov 13, 2024

I remember a phrase from some technical conference a number of years ago: "quality ships." If you ever wondered what this means, this article is for you. It describes what it is to 'shop' a software product, and the sorts of concerns the person responsible has in order to ensure the project ships. After all, the default status for any project is 'not shipped'. There will always be something that could be added, something improved. The idea is to get it in front of as many ideas as possible, deal with the issues, earn the confidence of management, and deliver the result. Via Ben Werdmuller.

The post Predatory Data Eugenics in Big Tech and Our Fight for an Independent Future was curated by information for practice.

The groundbreaking Digital Services Act (DSA) and its sister law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are the biggest and most recent attempts to rein in tech companies.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) forces companies to more aggressively police digital content and protect online users from disinformation and hate speech, or face the risk of heavy fines.

Across the EU, a host of internet giants - including Meta's Facebook and Instagram platforms, Chinese-owned video app TikTok and a handful of Google services - are adapting to the new obligations, including preventing harmful content from spreading, banning or limiting certain user-targeting practices, and sharing some internal data with regulators and associated researchers.

The Digital Services Act aims to protect European users when it comes to privacy, transparency, and removal of harmful or illegal content.

The companies will have six months to demonstrate their compliance with their obligations and can be fined up to 10% of their annual global turnover for DMA violations.

European telecoms firms, including Orange and Vodafone, are calling on the EU to make tech and streaming giants pay for the large amounts of bandwidth they consume. Telecoms companies argue that they need more money to maintain and update infrastructure to meet Europe's data needs, and believe it would be fairer for companies like Netflix to contribute.

He has been in the spotlight in recent weeks after the launch of the first investigations under a new EU law into X (formerly Twitter), Facebook owner Meta and TikTok over the spread of false information and hate speech following the Hamas-Israel conflict.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's proposal would subject companies like Alphabet, Apple, PayPal and Block's CashApp to bank-like supervision, with CFPB examiners inspecting their privacy protections, executives' conduct and compliance with laws barring unfair and deceptive practices.

Companies such as Meta have said such a move would not solve the telcos' financial problems and ignores hefty investments by tech companies.

Under the proposed legislation, the owners of platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok and podcasting services would face penalties worth up to five percent of annual global turnover -- some of the highest proposed anywhere in the world.

If you rely on search engine marketing for calls, you are putting your company at risk because you are relying on the unreliable. Here are eight steps to wean your company off big tech dependency.

Mehran Sahami, a Stanford professor and former Google employee, wants to see a reset from the technology industry. For the past few decades, the world's technologists (many of whom become its corporate executives and venture capitalists) have been taught to prioritize optimization and efficiency without thinking a whole lot about ethics. The result has been stunning corporate success but significant costs to society. Sahami argues that regulation can certainly help right the balance. But he also believes that tech company leaders and employees can shift their mindsets and practices to ensure they're serving the greater good, not just themselves. He's the coauthor, along with Rob Reich and Jeremy Weinstein, of "System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot."

The use of artificial intelligence and specifically generative AI is growing rapidly, and tech giants like Google have an important role to play in how that technology gets adopted and developed. Sundar Pichai is the CEO of Google as well as its parent company Alphabet, which he's led as an AI-first company for several years. He speaks with HBR editor in chief Adi Ignatius about shaping Google's AI strategy, putting safeguards in place, and how work and leadership will change as AI advances.

Since the mid-1970s, the world has witnessed the rise and... more

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law is holding a hearing titled "Reviving Competition, Part 2: Saving the Free and Diverse Pres."

WASHINGTON: Big Tech firms are clobbering traditional news organisations, media representatives told lawmakers Tuesday, asking for new authority to allow the struggling sector to team up against online platforms.

While AI opens up technical solutions in healthcare, giving Big Tech unregulated access to health data is a big mistake, argues Dr Nicole Gross.

Read more: Is the EU doing enough to protect health data from AI-powered Big Tech?

US election: A turning point for global enforcement of Big Tech?

Knee-jerk regulations of AI and privacy issues could end up serving the biggest companies and hurting consumers by stifling future competition.

The bill would tax Amazon, Meta and Google for the data they take from users and pump the money into news organizations in the form of tax credits.

Trump's views on artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, electric vehicles and other issues could reshape the tech industry.

Shipping is really hard and you have to make it your main priority Shipping doesn’t mean deploying code, it means making your leadership team happy

Google is acting directly to shape what people can say and what they're allowed to speak. It's a direct effort to stifle free speech. Continue reading →

So Apple isn't fighting for diversity. They're doing exactly what they appear to be doing: they're trying to keep wages down and keep their workers compliant by importing labor from abroad.This isn't about diversity. It's about exploitation. It always is Continue reading →

Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution. Congress is giving Big Tech immunity and more power in exchange for it censoring whatever Congress wants censored. Continue reading →

Deplatforming Trump puts big tech under fresh scrutiny Expert comment NCapeling 22 January 2021

The response of digital platforms to the US Capitol riots raises questions about online content governance. The EU and UK are starting to come up with answers.

The ‘deplatforming’ of Donald Trump – including Twitter’s announcement that it has permanently banned him due to ‘the risk of further incitement of violence’ after the riots in the US – shows once more not only the sheer power of online platforms but also the lack of a coherent and consistent framework for online content governance.

Taking the megaphone away from Trump during the Capitol riots seems sensible, but was it necessary or proportionate to ban him from the platform permanently? Or consistent with the treatment of other ‘strongmen’ world leaders such as Modi, Duterte and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who have overseen nationalistic violence but whose accounts remain intact?

Such complex decisions on online expression should not made unilaterally by powerful and unregulated tech actors, but instead should be subject to democratic oversight and grounded in the obligations of states and responsibilities of companies under international human rights law.

The speed and scale of digital information has left governments across the world struggling with how to tackle online harms such as hate speech, extremist content and disinformation since the emergence of mass social media 15 years ago.

The US’s hallowed approach to the First Amendment, under which speech on public issues – even hate speech – occupies the highest rank and is entitled to special protection, has contributed to a reluctance to regulate Silicon Valley’s digital platforms. But the irony is that by not regulating them, the government harmed freedom of expression by leaving complex speech decisions in the hands of private actors.

Meanwhile at the other extreme is the growing number of illiberal and authoritarian governments using a combination of vague laws, censorship, propaganda, and internet blackouts to severely restrict online freedom of expression, control the narrative and, in some cases, incite atrocities.

Regulation is on the way

The happy medium – flexible online content regulation providing clarity, predictability, transparency, and accountability – has until now been elusive. But even before the deplatforming of Trump, 2021 was set to be the year when this approach finally gained some traction, at least in Europe.

The EU’s recently-published draft Digital Services Act puts obligations on dominant social media platforms to manage ‘systemic risks’, for example through requirements for greater transparency about their content decisions, algorithms used for recommendations, and online advertising systems.

The UK will shortly publish its Online Safety Bill, which will establish a new regulatory framework for tackling online harms, including the imposition of a duty of care and codes of conduct on Big Tech, to be overseen by an independent regulator (Ofcom).

Both proposals are based on a ‘co-regulatory’ model under which the regulator sets out a framework substantiated with rules by the private sector, with the regulator performing a monitoring function to ensure the rules are complied with.

Both also draw on international human rights standards and the work of civil society in applying these standards in relation to the online public square, with the aim of increasing control for users over what they see online, requiring transparency about tech companies’ policies in a number of areas, and strengthening the accountability of platforms when they fall foul of the regulation.

The procedure for both proposals has also been inclusive, involving extensive multi-stakeholder consultations with civil society organizations and Big Tech, and the proposals will be subject to scrutiny in 2021, notably from the EU and UK parliaments.

Both proposals are at an early stage, and it remains to be seen whether they go far enough – or indeed will have a chilling effect on online platforms. But as an attempt to initiate a dialogue on globally coherent principles, they are positive first steps. They also provide food for thought for the new Joe Biden administration in the US as it turns its attention to the regulation of Big Tech.

For some time civil society – most prominently David Kaye, the former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion – have called for content regulation to be informed by universal international human rights law standards.

The EU and UK are peculiarly well-placed to take the lead in this area because European countries have for decades been on the receiving end of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights on the appropriate limits to freedom of expression in cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In deciding these cases, the court has to balance the right to freedom of expression against the restrictions imposed – for example in the context of incitement to violence, political debate, and satire. Deciding where to draw the line on what can and cannot be expressed in a civilised society which prizes freedom of expression is inevitably a difficult exercise.

International human rights law provides a methodology that inquires whether the interference to freedom of expression was prescribed by law and pursues a legitimate aim, and also whether it was necessary in a democratic society to achieve those aims – including whether the interference was necessary and proportionate (as for example in Delfi AS v Estonia, which involved a news portal failing to take down unlawful hate speech).

To be effective, online content regulation has to bite on tech companies, which is a challenge given the internet is global but domestic law normally applies territorially. The EU’s proposals have an extraterritorial element as they apply to any online platforms providing services in the EU regardless of where the platform is headquartered.

Further, both the EU and UK want to give the regulator strong enforcement powers – it is proposed for example that Ofcom will have powers to fine platforms up to ten per cent of their turnover for breaches.

Although the proposals would not apply directly to the deplatforming of Trump which occurred in the US, the philosophy behind the EU and UK approach is likely to have an impact beyond European shores in promoting a co-regulatory model that some of the bigger tech companies have been inviting for some time, reluctant as they are to ‘play God’ on content moderation decisions without reference to any regulatory framework.

In the absence of regulation, the standards of tech platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have already evolved over time in response to pressure from civil rights groups, users, and advertisers, including updated policies on protecting civic conversation and hate speech.

Facebook has also set up an independent Oversight Board, whose members include leading human rights lawyers, to review decisions on content including – at its own request – the decision to indefinitely suspend Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Decisions on the Board’s first tranche of cases are expected imminently.

Gatekeeper status is key

Online content regulation also needs to address the role of Big Tech as the ‘digital gatekeepers’, because their monopoly power extends not just to editorial control of the news and information we consume, but also to market access.

The decision of Apple, Google, and Amazon to stop hosting right-wing social network Parler after it refused to combat calls for violence during the US Capitol riots was understandable in the circumstances, but also underlined the unilateral ability of Big Tech to decide the rules of the market.

Again, it is Europe where efforts are underway to tackle this issue: the EU’s draft Digital Market Act imposes obligations on online gatekeepers to avoid certain unfair practices, and the UK’s new Digital Markets Unit will have powers to write and enforce a new code of practice on those technology companies with ‘substantial and enduring’ market power.

In the US, Biden’s team will be following these developments with interest, given the growing bipartisan support for strengthening US antitrust rules and reviving antitrust enforcement. The EU’s recently published proposals for an EU-US tech agenda include a transatlantic dialogue on the responsibility of tech platforms and strengthened cooperation between antitrust authorities on digital markets.

Ultimately a consistent – and global – approach to online content is needed instead of fragmented approaches by different companies and governments. It is also important the framework is flexible so that it is capable of applying not only to major democracies but also to countries where too often sweeping state regulation has been used as a pretext to curtail online expression online.

The pursuit of a pluralistic framework tailored to different political and cultural contexts is challenging, and international human rights law cannot provide all the answers but, as a universal framework, it is a good place to start. The raft of regulatory measures from the EU and UK means that, regardless of whether Trump regains his online megaphone, 2021 is set to be a year of reckoning for Big Tech.

Congress grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google about "pandemic profiteering," anti-competitive practices, and the flow of misinformation about COVID-19.

The Russian App Store has lost 6,982 mobile apps since the start of the Ukraine invasion, as numerous companies have now pulled their apps and games from Apple’s iPhone and iPad App Stores in the country, according to data shared with TechCrunch by app intelligence firm Sensor Tower. To date, those apps had been downloaded […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Qwant, France’s privacy-focused search engine, and Ecosia, a Berlin-based not-for-profit search engine that uses ad revenue to fund tree planting and other climate-focused initiatives, are joining forces on a joint venture to develop their own European search index. The pair hopes this move will help drive innovation in their respective search engines — including and […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

A tech industry battle is taking shape over the metaverse. WSJ tech reporter Meghan Bobrowsky explains the concept and why tech companies like Facebook, Roblox and Epic Games are investing billions to develop this digital space. Photo: Storyblocks

A revised version of the bill was tabled by bipartisan senators in the United States on Wednesday that strengthens the stance for digital news publishers to negotiate with Big Tech companies for sharing revenues that entail the use of their content.

Why are tech companies freezing their hiring process and laying off their employees? How has the new app tracking feature by Apple led to the sacking of employees?

The U.S. presidential election and the campaign has again highlighted a key issue — of technology and online spaces posing a threat to the safety and the dignity of women

The short point is that data protection is not just about Aadhaar.

With an impressive green energy portfolio, Michael Ross Catania is set to become the next big name, by developing successful design patents. These industrial designs are mainly in green energy and consumer electronics.

Digital transformation has just begun.

Not a single industry is safe from the unstoppable wave of digitization that is sweeping through finance, retail, healthcare, and more.

In 2020, we expect to see even more transformative developments that will change our businesses, careers, and lives.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

See Also:

• GoBear has acquired AsiaKredit to drive growth through digital consumer lending
• US personal savings rate increases due to lowered spending amid social distancing
• RBS is shuttering its standalone digital bank Bó due to coronavirus fallout

Big tech companies have been spying on us for years. This knowledge isn’t new information, but what could be surprising is exactly to what extent each company does it. Security Baron categories what data six of the biggest tech companies collect from you in The Data Big Companies Have On You infographic, and these are just the ones they admit to collecting on their own privacy pages!

The seemingly endless stream of Facebook privacy scandals of late—including the latest involving users as young as 13 years old—may have you questioning how much the social network and other tech giants actually know about you.

The folks at Security Baron examined the privacy policies of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, Amazon, and Microsoft and put together a handy infographic showing the types of data each company admits to collecting. For Facebook and others, data is money. But just how much these tech giants actually know about you might be surprising.

As you can see in the infographic below, Facebook is particularly data-hungry, even gathering information about your work, income level, race, religion, political views, and the ads you click in addition to more commonly collected data points such as your phone number, email address, location, and the type of devices you use.

"Facebook is unusually aggressive," Security Baron pointed out. "This data can be exploited by advertisers and (hopefully not nefarious) others."

Twitter, in comparison, is "comparatively hands-off," the site notes. The microblogging service, for instance, doesn't collect your name, gender, or birthday (Facebook, Google, and Microsoft all do), but Twitter does know your phone number, email address, time zone, what videos you watch, and more.

Google and Microsoft, meanwhile, are the other big players when it comes to collecting data.

"With Cortana listening in and Gmail seeing all of your emails, the ubiquitous nature of Google and Microsoft gives them access to an uncomfortably large amount of your information," Security Baron wrote.

Check out the full infographic below to see what Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, Amazon, and Microsoft may know about you. For tips on securing your digital privacy, check our story, "Online Data Protection 101: Don't Let Big Tech Get Rich Off Your Info.

This is a fairly simple infographic design using a comparison table. I think the use of the icons is particularly effective showing which of Google’s or Microsoft’s apps are collecting the data.

Although the types of data are identified down the left side, I wish there was a way to identify the more sensitive types of data.

Original article can be found at https://www.pcmag.com/

Apple, Amazon, Alphabet (which owns Google), and Facebook—known in the tech world as the Big Four—are among the largest and most profitable companies in the world, and they’ve been accustomed to the laxest of oversight from Washington. But the climate may have shifted in a significant way. The Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the House Judiciary Committee are all investigating different aspects of the Big Four; Elizabeth Warren has made breaking up these companies a cornerstone of her Presidential campaign. Sue Halpern, a New Yorker contributor, sounds a cautious note about these developments. Current antitrust law doesn’t well fit the nature of these businesses, and breaking up the companies will not necessarily solve underlying issues, like the lack of privacy law. In a twist, Halpern says, the Big Four and now asking the federal government for more regulation—because, she explains to David Remnick, the companies’ lobbyists can sway Washington more easily than they can influence state governments like California, which just passed a rigorous data-privacy law similar to the European Union’s. “They’re being called to account, they have to do something,” she notes, “but they want to direct the conversation so that, ultimately, they still win.”

The technology giants have plenty of advantages in fending off antitrust actions. But that's what the old Bell System's leaders thought, too.

Digital transformation has just begun.

Not a single industry is safe from the unstoppable wave of digitization that is sweeping through finance, retail, healthcare, and more.

In 2020, we expect to see even more transformative developments that will change our businesses, careers, and lives.

To help you stay ahead of the curve, Business Insider Intelligence has put together a list of 30 Big Tech Predictions for 2020 across Banking, Connectivity & Tech, Digital Media, Payments & Commerce, Fintech, and Digital Health.

This exclusive report can be yours for FREE today.

Join the conversation about this story »

Who’s Really Behind That “Death of the Techlash” Narrative?   One of my least favorite kinds of journalism is the easy win. It’s the kind of story that just lands in your lap. It feels contrarian, yet of the moment, it’s often predicated by the appearance of a primary source dangling easy data, and unlike most … Continue reading "Will The Coronavirus Save Big Tech?"