Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google defend firms against calls for break-up

[MenInG]

The heads of some of the world's biggest tech companies have appeared before lawmakers in Washington to defend their firms as critics call for them to be broken up.

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos said the world "needs large" firms, while the heads of Facebook, Apple and Google argued their companies had spurred innovation.

The appearance by the executives comes as US lawmakers consider tougher tech regulation.

Competition probes are also underway.

Congressman David Cicilline, a Democrat leading the congressional committee holding the hearing, said a year-long investigation by lawmakers had revealed patterns of abuse by the online platforms.

"The dominant platforms have wielded their power in destructive... ways in order to expand," he said.

'Out to get conservatives'
Critics say tech companies abuse their size and power to benefit their own products, and undercut or acquire rivals, depressing competition - and ultimately hurting the wider economy.

They say regulators charged with enforcing competition rules - known as anti-trust law in the US - have been too lax.

Concerns about their power have increased in Washington in recent years, and there is a sense the US has lagged behind Europe when it comes to taking action on issues such as competition and privacy.

Conservatives also accuse tech firms of suppressing conservative views and abusing their powers when it comes to free speech.

"I'll just cut to the chase - big tech is out to get conservatives," said Congressman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio.

The companies pushed back against those arguments during the much anticipated congressional hearing, in which they appeared by remote video.

"Scrutiny is reasonable and appropriate," Apple boss Tim Cook said in prepared remarks. "But we make no concession on the facts."

In his prepared remarks, Mr Bezos said his firm faced significant competition from firms such as Walmart.

"I love garage entrepreneurs—I was one. But, just like the world needs small companies, it also needs large ones. There are things small companies simply can't do," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53583941

 

[MenInG]

Republican congressman Matt Gaetz claimed that Google collaborates with Chinese universities that take "millions upon millions of dollars from the Chinese military" and noted that tech investor Peter Thiel had previously accused the company of "treason".

Sundar Pichai - chief executive of parent company Alphabet - denied that his employees were acting against American interests.

"We are not working with the Chinese military it's absolutely false," he said.

"What we do in China, compared to our peers, it's very very limited in nature.

"Our AI work in China is limited to a handful of people working on open source projects."

 

[MenInG]

The Democrat congressman Henry Johnson raised concerns about Apple's App Store, suggesting its moderators made up rules "as they go" and then arbitrarily interpreted them.

He added that it appeared that the rules were sometimes "changed to benefit Apple at the expense of [third-party] developers" and also discriminated between different creators.

"Sir, we treat every developer the same," Mr Cook responded.

"We have open and transparent rules... we do look at every app before it goes on. But those apps, those rules apply evenly to everyone."

Mr Johnson went on to suggest there was nothing to stop Apple raising its cut of app sales from the existing level of 30% to 50%.

Mr Cook replied that he strongly disagreed with this.

"There is a competition for developers," the Apple chief said, saying software creators could switch their efforts to Android, Windows, Xbox or PlayStation.


==


Zuckerberg responds to case of mistaken identity

Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner asked Mark Zuckerberg why a post by the US president's son, Donald Trump Jr, had been taken down because it discussed the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine.

Mr Zuckerberg noted that happened on a rival social network, but answered the point.

"I think what you might be referring to happened on on Twitter, so it's hard for me to speak to that. But I can talk to our policies.

"We do prohibit content that will lead to imminent risk of harm.

"We do not want to become the arbiters of truth... [but] if someone is going to go out and say that hydroxychloroquine is proven to cure Covid, when in fact it has not been proven to cure Covid, and that statement could lead people to to take a drug that that in some cases, some of the data suggests that it might be harmful to people - we think that we should take that down."

 

[MenInG]

The heads of some of the world's biggest tech companies have appeared before Washington lawmakers to defend their firms against claims they abuse their power to quash competitors.

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos said the world "needs large" firms, while the heads of Facebook, Apple and Google argued their companies had spurred innovation.

The appearance comes as lawmakers consider tougher regulation and competition probes are under way.

Some critics want the firms broken up.

Democrats pressed the tech titans on competition issues, while Republicans were more concerned about how they managed information and whether they were marginalising conservative views.

The hearing as it happened

Congressman David Cicilline, the Democrat leading the congressional committee holding the hearing, said a year-long investigation by lawmakers had showed the online platforms had "wielded their power in destructive, harmful ways in order to expand".

He said he was convinced the firms were monopolies and called for action.

"Some need to be broken up and all need to be properly regulated," he said at the end of more than five hours of testimony.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai of Google, and Tim Cook of Apple insisted they had done nothing illegal and stressed the American roots and values of their firms.

What are the main concerns about the tech giants?

At the hearing, lawmakers accused Google of having stolen content created by smaller firms, like Yelp, in order to keep users on their own web pages.

Amazon's treatment of sellers on its site, Facebook's acquisition of competitors such as Instagram, and Apple's App store also drew attention.

Mr Cicilline said Amazon had an inherent conflict of interest, since it both hosts sellers and competes against them by offering similar products. Such practice has also come under scrutiny from European regulators.

"Amazon's dual role... is fundamentally anti-competitive and Congress must take action," he said.

However, some Republicans signalled they were not prepared to split up the firms or significantly overhaul US competition laws, with one committee member saying "big is not inherently bad".

Republican concerns focused on perceived political bias at the firms, which they accused of suppressing conservative views.

"I'll just cut to the chase - big tech is out to get conservatives," said Congressman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio.

Tech giants face feeding frenzy

Four of the world's top technology company executives may have been testifying before the Judiciary Committee from a distance, but they were still caught in the middle of a political storm on Wednesday afternoon.

The stated purpose of the hearing was to address whether existing anti-trust laws provide sufficient regulation of transnational tech Goliaths. The reality, however, was that the proceedings - with each member of the committee receiving five minutes to speak - were more akin to a feeding frenzy, as corporate chiefs faced criticism from every direction

Democrats expressed concern that the companies were abusing their power by disadvantaging competitors or buying them out entirely. Republicans accused the witnesses of insufficient patriotism and being too cosy with the Chinese.

Both sides expressed outrage over how the companies managed speech and expression on their platforms. They didn't go far enough in removing hateful rhetoric and false information, Democrats said. They singled out conservatives for censorship, the Republicans countered.

Through it all, the witnesses thanked the questioners and took their lumps, perhaps confident that they could soon log off and get back to their work. While all the politicians seemed to agree that the big tech companies were a problem, their chances of arriving at any kind of solution seems unlikely.

What did the companies say?

Appearing by remote video, the executives defended their companies, saying their products helped smaller businesses and they remained vulnerable to competition from newcomers.

Apple boss Tim Cook said the business climate was "so competitive I would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business".

Mr Bezos, in his first appearance before Congress, denied that Amazon's multiple roles were a conflict of interest, but he admitted the firm was reviewing its handling of sales data from sellers on the site.

The company has been accused of using such information to launch its own version of hot-selling products.

Mr Bezos said Amazon rules forbid staff from looking at sales data from individual companies, but he conceded it was possible that employees had violated the policy.

"We are investigating that," he said.

In his prepared remarks, Mr Bezos said Amazon faced significant competition from firms such as Walmartand noted that the company lost money for years as it branched out into new areas.

"I love garage entrepreneurs - I was one. But, just like the world needs small companies, it also needs large ones. There are things small companies simply can't do," he said.

US President Donald Trump is a long-time critic of Amazon and threatened his own action on Twitter, writing: "If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders."

He also told reporters that White House officials would be watching the hearing closely.

"There's no question that what the big tech companies are doing is very bad," he said.

Tech analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities said "storm clouds" were building in Washington but he thought it was unlikely that Congress would come together on new legislation that would force tech companies to change.

"We think a legislative fix is the only one that creates a potential for limitations on these companies' ability to conduct business, whether that takes the form of higher taxes or new rules regarding market concentration," he wrote.

"Absent a legislative fix, we don't see meaningful change in regulation, although future acquisitions will most certainly be scrutinized and more difficult to close."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53583941

 

[MenInG]

<iframe width="400" height="500" frameborder="0" src="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p08m72fv/53591704"></iframe>


Amazon boss Jeff Bezos rejects claims company acted like a 'drug dealer'

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos has rejected claims that his company acted like a "drug dealer" in its business tactics.

US Congressman David Cicilline, the Democrat leading a hearing looking into the world's biggest tech companies, said a year-long investigation by lawmakers had showed several online platforms had "wielded their power in destructive, harmful ways in order to expand".

Mr Bezos insisted his decisions were based on what was good for the consumer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/busines...jects-claims-company-acted-like-a-drug-dealer

 

[JaDed]

Remember Microsoft going through its share of it in 90's too somehow they are spared now like IBM because both already too big but these 4 tech companies are ambitious and probably would be ok in next 20 years as well.

 

[MenInG]

Some of America's biggest tech companies have defied the coronavirus pandemic to post better-than-expected financial results.

Amazon posted the biggest profit in its 26-year history, while Facebook, Apple and Alphabet all beat estimates.

Many brick-and-mortar retailers have struggled during the coronavirus pandemic, with most forced to shut down under rules intended to limit the spread of the illness.

Even as retailers reopen following the easing of lockdown restrictions, they are having to lay off workers to survive.

But Amazon hired 175,000 people and posted revenue of $88.9bn (£67.9bn), a jump of 40% compared to the same point last year.

The company's founder Jeff Bezos, who is the world's richest person, described the quarter as "highly unusual".

The online marketplace had thought it would lose money in the second quarter as it expected to spend around $4bn (£3bn) on protective equipment for its workers along with other coronavirus-related measures.

But it still made a second-quarter profit of $5.2bn (£3.4bn), double that of last year.

Apple reported year-on-year revenue gains across every category and chief financial officer Luca Maestri said the strong performance was expected to continue into the next quarter, despite new models being delayed.

The California-based company benefited from more people working and learning from home during the lockdown, prompting a boost in demand for iPads and Macs.

The firm said sales of its iPad and Mac hit $6.58bn (£5bn) and $7.08bn (£5.4bn) respectively, beating expectations of $4.88bn and $6.06bn.

Chief executive Tim Cook told Reuters: "Both had some really significant product announcements at the end of March, beginning of April.

"I think we have the strongest product line in both areas that we've ever had.

"You combine that with the work from home and remote learning, and it's yielded really, really strong results."

The smartphone market was slowing even before the coronavirus, resulting in Apple's increasing focus on its services - the biggest component of which is its App Store, where it generates commissions of up to 30%.

Apple did not give a forecast for its fourth quarter.

Facebook reported an 11% increase in revenue - above expectations of a 3% fall but still its slowest rate of growth since its 2012 initial public offering.

Ad sales, which account for nearly all of Facebook's revenue, rose 10% to $18.3bn (£13.4bn) in the second quarter, while monthly active users hit 2.7 billion.

Google's parent Alphabet saw its quarterly revenue down by 2% compared to last year.

It was the first fall in 16 years but the decline was not as bad as expected as many advertisers remained loyal during the pandemic.

Alphabet, Facebook, Apple and Amazon account for nearly a fifth of the S&P 500's market value.

Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research said: "The unifying factor is they have the ability to both grow and control their cost structures through the pandemic. That is always a good place to start from when you have a downturn."

https://news.sky.com/story/amazon-a...to-post-better-results-than-expected-12039488

 

[MenInG]

Australia on Friday unveiled the world's first draft law to force Google and Facebook to pay traditional news media to publish their material in a move that is likely to encounter resistance from the tech behemoths.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced the "mandatory code of conduct" to govern relations between the struggling news industry and the United States social media and search firms after 18 months of negotiations failed to bring the two sides together.

Under the plan, the tech giants will have to negotiate with Australian media companies to use their content. The code also covers issues like access to user data, transparency of algorithms and ranking of content in the platforms' news feeds and search results.

"It's about a fair go for Australian news media businesses," Frydenberg told a media conference. "It's about ensuring that we have increased competition, increased consumer protection, and a sustainable media landscape."

Neither Facebook nor Google responded to requests for comment from Reuters news agency. Both companies, the world's two biggest sellers of online ads, have spent years fending off demands from news media around the world for a share of the advertising revenue.

The draft version of the code, drawn up by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is open for consultation until August 28. Frydenberg said legislation would be introduced to parliament shortly afterwards and could be implemented by the end of the year.

It will include "substantial penalties" that could cost the tech companies hundreds of millions of dollars, he said.

'World-leading'

While Australia envisages the code will eventually apply to any digital platform using Australian news content, Frydenberg said it would initially focus on Facebook and Google, two of the world's richest and most powerful companies.

The initiative has been closely watched around the globe because news media have suffered as tech giants like Facebook and Google hoover up the advertising revenue that once helped support them.

The news industry crisis has been exacerbated by the economic collapse caused by the coronavirus pandemic, with dozens of Australian newspapers closed and hundreds of journalists sacked in recent months.

Even as broader economies have plunged into their worst recessions in years, tech firms have continued to prosper.

Facebook on Thursday reported net profit of $5.2 billion for the three months ended June, as ad sales on its platform rose 10 percent to $18.3 billion. Google, which is owned by Alphabet and makes money through advertising on search and through sites such as YouTube, said online ad sales were recovering after a March plunge and rising on Youtube. Its second quarter profit was above expectations at nearly $7 billion.

Both companies have strongly opposed any move forcing them to share advertising revenue, hinting they could simply boycott Australian media if mandatory payments are imposed.

But Frydenberg warned that the code would prohibit any "discrimination" against Australian media by the tech companies.

"Today's draft legislation will draw the attention of many regulatory agencies and many governments around the world," he said, calling the proposed law "world-leading".

"Nothing less than the future of the Australian media landscape is at stake with these changes."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...virus-cases-live-updates-200730235247008.html

 

[MenInG]

Some of America's biggest tech firms on Monday backed a challenge to President Donald Trump's restrictions on foreign workers.

Amazon, Apple and Facebook are among the companies arguing that the temporary visa bans will damage US firms.

Mr Trump imposed restrictions on some foreign workers to safeguard jobs for Americans during the virus pandemic.

Many of those affected by the measures are technology workers from India.

Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter and other big technology companies also backed the lawsuit, which was filed last month by major US business associations.

Trump targets foreign workers with new visa freeze
Trump signs immigration green card suspension
Why Trump's H-1B visa freeze will hurt India most
Those industry groups included the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents 14,000 firms, and America's biggest business association, the US Chamber of Commerce.

The brief argued that the visa restrictions, which were announced in June, will hurt US businesses.

The companies said Mr Trump’s proclamation was based on a “false assumption” that it would protect American jobs as it would mean they may now have to employ people in other countries.

The brief said: “Global competitors in Canada, China, and India, among others, are pouncing at the opportunity to attract well-trained, innovative individuals.

“And American businesses are scrambling to adjust, hiring needed talent to work in locations outside our nation’s borders,” it continued.

They also contended that it could do irreparable damage to American businesses, workers and further hurt the already struggling US economy.

Mr Trump's proclamation suspended the entry of a range of foreign workers until the end of this year.

Silicon Valley reaction

Shortly after the announcement in June some of America's biggest technology companies condemned the move.

Facebook said the order "uses the Covid-19 pandemic as justification for limiting immigration" and warned: "In reality, the move to keep highly skilled talent out of the US will make our country's recovery even more difficult".

Apple boss Tim Cook wrote on Twitter that he was "deeply disappointed" by the new proclamation, while Sundar Pichai, head of Alphabet - the parent company of Google and YouTube - said immigration was critical to the success of his company and the country.

Amazon, which received more than 3,000 H-1B visas last year - more than any other firm - called the order "short-sighted".

Who is affected?

The Trump administration said the freeze would impact about 525,000 people.

That included an estimated 170,000 people blocked by the decision to extend a ban on some new green cards - which grants permanent residence to foreigners.

The White House first announced it was halting those visas in April. Existing visa holders are not expected to be affected under the new restrictions.

The order also applies to H-1B visas, many of which are granted to Indian technology workers.

Critics say those visas have allowed Silicon Valley companies to outsource American jobs to lower-paid foreign employees.

Last year, there were about 225,000 applications competing for 85,000 spots available through the H1-B visa programme.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53732395

 

[MenInG]

A US Senate committee unanimously voted on a plan to subpoena the chief executives of Twitter, Alphabet’s Google and Facebook for a hearing about the legal immunity they enjoy over content posted by users of their platform.

The hearing, which will likely be held before the United States elections, will discuss reforming Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which offers tech companies protection from liability over content posted by their users.

The top Democrat on the US Senate Commerce Committee, Maria Cantwell, opposed the move last week, saying she was against using “the committee’s serious subpoena power for a partisan effort 40 days before an election”. But Cantwell changed her mind and voted to approve the move on Thursday.

“I actually can’t wait to ask Mr Zuckerberg further questions,” Cantwell said. “I welcome the debate about [Section] 230.”

The committee, chaired by Republican Senator Roger Wicker, had originally asked the executives to come on October 1 on a voluntary basis but was ready to issue subpoenas last week should the CEOs decline to appear.

“After extending an invite to these executives, I regret that they have again declined to participate and answer questions about issues that are so visible and urgent to the American people,” Wicker said on Thursday.

The committee’s vote means the CEOs can now be subpoenaed to appear.

Wicker said Section 230’s “sweeping liability protections” are stifling diversity of political discourse on the internet.

US President Donald Trump has made holding tech companies accountable for allegedly stifling conservative voices a theme of his administration. As a result, calls for a reform of Section 230 have been intensifying ahead of the elections, but there is little chance of approval by Congress this year.

Last week, Trump met nine Republican state attorneys general to discuss the fate of Section 230 after the Justice Department unveiled a legislative proposal aimed at reforming the law.

The chief executives of Google, Facebook, Apple Inc and Amazon.com Inc recently testified before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel. The panel, which is investigating how the companies’ practices hurt rivals, is expected to release its report as early as next Monday.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2...subpoenas-ceos-of-twitter-facebook-and-google

 

[JaDed]

Like Again? lol Why is America hell bent on killing its own corporations, Oil and Airline Companies are already screwed.. Texas is going down but they wanna take Cali down with it.

 

[MenInG]

The U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet Inc.’s Google, accusing it of abusing its monopoly in search in the most significant antitrust action against an American company in more than two decades — and possibly a century.

Google, which controls about 90% of the online search market in the U.S., was sued by the Justice Department Tuesday in Washington, according to court records. The complaint, which was joined by 11 Republican state attorneys general, wasn’t immediately available.

Google shares fell less than 1% at 9:30 a.m. in New York.

The complaint is the first phase of what’s shaping up as a multi-pronged attack against Google. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is preparing a complaint against the company over its conduct in the digital-advertising market, where it controls much of the technology used by advertisers and publishers to buy and sell display ads across the web.

Google’s search business generates most of the company’s revenue and has funded its expansion into email, online video, smartphone software, maps, cloud computing, autonomous vehicles and display advertising. The search engine influences the fates of thousands of businesses online, which depend on Google to get in front of users.

Google began dominating online search 20 years ago with an algorithm that delivered results better than others’. Since then it has also relied on exclusive agreements and its own products, like its Android mobile operating system, to be the default search option for millions of users. That’s given it an insurmountable advantage over rivals, according to critics.

While it’s not illegal to be a monopoly under U.S. law, it’s a violation for a dominant company to engage in exclusionary conduct to protect or strengthen its market power.

The Justice Department’s case, which Texas and 10 other states joined, is the first to emerge from an investigation of some of the largest technology companies initiated by Attorney General William Barr almost 15 months ago. It’s the most significant antitrust lawsuit since the U.S. filed a case against Microsoft Corp. in 1998 and marks a seismic shift away from the government’s mostly laissez-faire approach toward America’s tech giants.

Barr had championed the Google case by giving it a high priority and assigning his No. 2 to oversee it. Yet as his department filed the long-awaited lawsuit in federal court, Barr was off preparing to speak on law and order in Marco Island, Florida. Barr has taken a low profile since President Donald Trump, starting about two weeks ago, began pushing him to prosecute his political enemies. On Tuesday, Trump demanded that Barr investigate Hunter Biden.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is preparing a complaint against Google over its conduct in the digital-advertising market [File: Bloomberg]
In addition to the case being developed by Texas, another group of state attorneys general are conducting a separate investigation into Google’s search business, including allegations that it violated antitrust laws by favoring its own specialized search services over offerings from rivals like Yelp Inc.
The Google cases could be followed by a Federal Trade Commission case later this year against Facebook Inc. joined by state attorneys general. In Congress, Representative David Cicilline intends to push legislation to curb the dominance of tech giants following findings of an investigation that Google, Facebook, Apple Inc., and Amazon.com Inc. abused their power as gatekeepers in the digital economy.

The combined challenges could upend how the companies do business. If the government prevails, one or more of the tech goliaths could even be broken up — reminiscent of the way the antitrust crusades of the early 20th century led to the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly railed against U.S. tech firms, exposing the Justice Department to criticism that the case against Google is politically motivated. A whistleblower from the department testified before the House in June that antitrust enforcement by the department has been driven by politics. In May, Trump complained that Google and its tech peers are controlled by the “Radical Left” and that he was “working to remedy this illegal situation.”

It will likely be more than a year before the lawsuit goes to trial if it’s not settled first. That could mean a Joe Biden administration will be responsible for continuing the case if the former vice president defeats Trump in November. While Biden has yet to detail his thinking on antitrust, his campaign is talking to proponents of more aggressive enforcement than existed under former President Barack Obama. Many Democratic lawmakers are also concerned about the need for stepped-up antitrust enforcement of large technology companies.

Google is expected to put up a fight and will be able to spare no expense with its defense. Its parent, Alphabet, is one of the world’s wealthiest companies with a market value of about $1 trillion and projected 2020 sales of $142 billion.

In hearings and court filings, the company has said it faces robust rivals in all its markets. It has argued that competition has helped lower the cost of online ads in recent years, and it has highlighted the money it makes for publishers and small businesses.

The House antitrust report found that Google has been able to build barriers to competition by becoming the default search engine on desktop and mobile internet browsers. In desktop browsers, Google search has default placement on Google Chrome, Apple’s Safari and Mozilla Corp.’s Firefox, amounting to 87% of the market, according to the report.

In mobile, Google search controls essentially the entire market because it’s the default search on its Android operating system and Apple’s iOS operating system. It pays Apple roughly $8 billion a year for the privilege, according to estimates by analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. And that’s not the only such agreement. Google also has deals with Mozilla’s Firefox as well as phone makers including Samsung Electronics Co.

While Europe has aggressively targeted the U.S.’s tech champions, particularly Google, for anticompetitive behavior, American enforcers have largely given them free rein. The FTC closed a previous Google inquiry in 2013 after two years without taking action. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have completed hundreds of acquisitions over the last decade, none of which have been blocked by merger cops.

The suit is the biggest monopoly case brought by the U.S. since the Justice Department and a group of states accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the market for computer operating systems. That case, brought under former president Bill Clinton, nearly led to the company’s breakup.

A federal district court judge ruled that Microsoft should be split up for having tied its internet browser to its Windows operating system — strangling competitors. But an appeals court reversed that ruling and the Justice Department settled the case under the George W. Bush administration.

Still, legal experts have said that by pinning Microsoft down for several years with the investigation and ensuing litigation, the U.S. made it possible for a new crop of tech companies like Google to emerge and thrive.

There are parallels between today’s widespread anti-big-tech sentiment and the Progressive Era push that lead to the breakup of Standard Oil. Oil was to the industrial base of the economy in the early 20th century, what data is to the 21st century economy.

The John D. Rockefeller empire began as a small refinery, but grew through acquisitions to control 90% of U.S. oil production, refining and transportation. Along the way, Rockefeller amassed huge amounts of economic power, as did steel and railroad magnates. That also led to the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and ultimately Standard Oil’s dissolution.

Google, likewise, began as a small search engine and grew quickly through acquisitions such as YouTube in 2006 and the DoubleClick digital advertising company in 2007 to control vast swaths of the digital advertising ecosystem. Google also stockpiled immense troves of data — decades’ worth of consumer and business buying preferences and surfing habits — deepening its economic grip and making it harder for new entrants to challenge it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2...rtment-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google

 

[MenInG]

The heads of Google, Facebook and Twitter are being grilled by senators over how they handle comments posted by their users

All three tech giants have been accused by both sides during a fraught presidential election campaign.

Early voting in the US election has now topped 70 million, more than half of the total turnout in 2016

Many of those casting their ballots early are seeking to reduce their exposure to coronavirus

Trump will hold two rallies today in Arizona – a battleground state where polls suggest Biden has the edge

Biden will give a speech near his home in Delaware on his plans to combat Covid-19 and protect Americans with pre-existing health conditions

In between the news and views from the campaign trail, our theme today is climate change and the election

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-socialmedia-congress/facebook-google-ceos-suggest-ways-to-reform-key-internet-law-idUSKBN2BG29D

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg laid out steps to reform a key internet law on Wednesday, saying that companies should have immunity from liability only if they follow best practices for removing damaging material from their platforms.

In testimony prepared for a joint hearing before two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees on Thursday, Zuckerberg acknowledged the calls from lawmakers for changes to a law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives companies like Facebook immunity from liability over content posted by users.

The hearing titled ‘Disinformation Nation: Social media’s role in promoting extremism and misinformation’ is designed to address concerns Democrats have had about the spread of misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic and the presidential election.

It is also likely to discuss ways to hold tech platforms accountable by reforming the internet law. The chief executives of Google and Twitter will also testify at the hearing.

Google’s Sundar Pichai will make suggestions to reform the law but, unlike Zuckerberg, will not advocate for adoption of a set of best practices, according to his testimony. Twitter’s Jack Dorsey will lay out steps the platform has taken to tackle misinformation.

Zuckerberg and Pichai will also urge caution as Congress considers reforming the law.

“Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its detection -- that would be impractical for platforms with billions of posts per day,” Zuckerberg wrote in his testimony.

Google’s Pichai also struck a similar note saying “without Section 230, platforms would either over-filter content or not be able to filter content at all.”

Pichai instead proposed solutions such as developing content policies that are clear and accessible, notifying people when their content is removed and giving them ways to appeal content decisions.

There are several pieces of legislation from Democrats to reform Section 230 that are doing the rounds in Congress. Several Republican lawmakers have also been pushing separately to scrap the law entirely.

 

[sweep_shot]

'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter

‘Fake' accounts claiming to be Amazon workers have been praising their working conditions on Twitter.

Votes are currently being counted in Alabama to decide whether Amazon warehouse workers will form a union.

But last night, a series of anti-union tweets were sent from accounts claiming to be staff.

Twitter has now suspended many of the accounts, and Amazon has confirmed at least one is fake.

Most of the accounts were made just a few days ago, often with only a few tweets, all related to Amazon.

“What bothers me most about unions is there’s no ability to opt out of dues,” one user under the handle @AmazonFCDarla tweeted, despite a state law in Alabama which prevents this.

“Amazon takes great care of me,” she added.

Another account - which later changed its profile picture after it was revealed to be fake - said: “Unions are good for some companies, but I don’t want to have to shell out hundreds a month just for lawyers!”

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266.

 

[sweep_shot]

Amazon apologises for wrongly denying drivers need to urinate in bottles

Amazon has apologised to a US politician for falsely denying that drivers are, at times, forced to urinate in plastic bottles.

Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin, referenced Amazon making "workers urinate in water bottles" in a tweet.

The official Amazon Twitter account then replied: "If that were true, nobody would work for us."

The company has now apologised after evidence emerged of drivers having to urinate in bottles.

"We owe an apology to Representative Pocan," Amazon said in a statement.

"The tweet was incorrect. It did not contemplate our large driver population and instead wrongly focused only on our fulfilment centres."

It added that its fulfilment centres all have dozens of toilets that employees can use "at any time".

Mr Pocan had criticised Amazon for opposing efforts by workers to unionise a major facility in Alabama.

"Paying workers $15/hr doesn't make you a 'progressive workplace' when you union-bust & make workers urinate in water bottles," he wrote last week.

Shortly afterwards, Amazon's official account responded: "You don't really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you? If that were true, nobody would work for us."

Several news outlets then quoted numerous Amazon employees who confirmed that they had been left with little option but to urinate in plastic bottles while working. They also described relentless working practices, both in its fulfilment centres and as delivery drivers.

The Intercept also said it had obtained internal documents suggesting that Amazon executives were aware of this happening.

Amazon's retraction added: "We know that drivers can and do have trouble finding restrooms because of traffic or sometimes rural routes, and this has been especially the case during Covid when many public restrooms have been closed."

It said the problem was "a long-standing, industry-wide issue" and said that they "would like to solve it".

Mr Pocan rejected the apology on Saturday, tweeting: "Sigh. This is not about me, this is about your workers - who you don't treat with enough respect or dignity. Start by acknowledging the inadequate working conditions you've created for ALL your workers, then fix that for everyone and finally, let them unionise without interference."

Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama, voted in a historic poll last week to decide whether they want to be represented by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. The effort has been strongly opposed by Amazon.

The results are not expected until next week. If they vote yes, it will become Amazon's first US union.

Amazon has successfully fought off union efforts elsewhere in the US. However, most of its European facilities are unionised.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56628745.

 

[sweep_shot]

Amazon's Jeff Bezos backs tax rise on companies

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos has said he supports raising taxes on US companies.

The comments by the world's richest man come as US President Joe Biden is pushing to raise the corporate rate from 21% to 28%.

The rise would help pay for a massive spending plan to upgrade America's roads, ports, water pipes and internet.

In his speech unveiling the proposal, Mr Biden singled out Amazon as an example of a company that pays too little.

The statement by Mr Bezos said Amazon supported Mr Biden's "focus on infrastructure" and called on Democrats and Republicans to "work together" and reach a compromise.

"We recognize this investment will require concessions from all sides - both on the specifics of what's included as well as how it gets paid for (we're supportive of a rise in the corporate tax rate)," Mr Bezos said in the statement.

"We look forward to Congress and the Administration coming together to find the right, balanced solution that maintains or enhances U.S. competitiveness."

Unanswered questions
Amazon's position sets it apart from that of Republicans and top business lobbies, which have already spoken out against the tax increases, which they claim would hurt economic growth.

In his statement, Mr Bezos did not say whether Amazon would support the White House's other tax proposals beyond the increase to the corporate rate.

Those are aimed at capturing more tax from profits earned by US companies overseas, including by working with other countries to establish a global minimum tax.

Analysts say changes to those rules are likely to stir stronger opposition from businesses than the rise in the corporate rate, which many companies do not face, thanks to deductions and other credits.

In 2020, Amazon paid an effective federal income tax rate of 9.4%, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Though it has long faced attacks for its tax practices, Amazon has pushed back more strongly against critics in recent weeks.

On Twitter, it sparred with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who recently accused the firm of exploiting corporate loopholes and paying "close to nothing" in tax, while discussing her own tax plans.

The company said it had reported $1.7bn in federal tax expense last year and invested $350bn. Amazon's investments have helped reduce its tax bill under rules aimed at incentivising firms for activities like research and development.

"You make the tax laws @SenWarren; we just follow them. If you don't like the laws you've created, by all means, change them," the company said.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56657596.

 

[sweep_shot]

Amazon defeats historic Alabama union effort

Amazon has defeated activists hoping to establish the company's first unionised warehouse in the US.

Workers at the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse voted 1,798 to 738 against the effort, labour officials said.

That represented a majority of votes cast in the contest, which was seen as a key test for Amazon after global criticism of its treatment of workers during the pandemic.

The union said it would challenge the results.

It accused Amazon of interfering with the right of employees to vote in a "free and fair election", including by lying to staff about the implications of the vote in mandatory meetings and pushing the postal service to install a mailbox on company grounds in an effort to monitor the vote.

"Amazon has left no stone unturned in its efforts to gaslight its own employees," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), which organised the effort.

"We won't let Amazon's lies, deception and illegal activities go unchallenged, which is why we are formally filing charges against all of the egregious and blatantly illegal actions taken by Amazon during the union vote."

Amazon said on Friday that it was "not true" that it had intimidated staff.

It said the firm worked hard to listen to concerns and improve, casting the outcome as a choice by staff, rather than a company victory.

"We're not perfect, but we're proud of our team and what we offer, and will keep working to get better every day," it said.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56695667.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/business/g7-nations-near-historic-deal-taxing-multinationals-2021-06-05/

The United States, Britain and other large, rich nations reached a landmark deal on Saturday to squeeze more money out of multinational companies such as Amazon and Google and reduce their incentive to shift profits to low-tax offshore havens.

Hundreds of billions of dollars could flow into the coffers of governments left cash-strapped by the COVID-19 pandemic after the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies agreed to back a minimum global corporate tax rate of at least 15%.

Facebook (FB.O) said it expected it would have to pay more tax, in more countries, as a result of the deal, which comes after eight years of talks that gained fresh impetus in recent months after proposals from U.S. President Joe Biden's new administration.

"G7 finance ministers have reached a historic agreement to reform the global tax system to make it fit for the global digital age," British finance minister Rishi Sunak said after chairing a two-day meeting in London.

The meeting, hosted at an ornate 19th-century mansion near Buckingham Palace in central London, was the first time finance ministers have met face-to-face since the start of the pandemic.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the "significant, unprecedented commitment" would end what she called a race to the bottom on global taxation.

German finance minister Olaf Scholz said the deal was "bad news for tax havens around the world".

Yellen also saw the G7 meeting as marking a return to multilateralism under Biden and a contrast to the approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, who alienated many U.S. allies.

"What I've seen during my time at this G7 is deep collaboration and a desire to coordinate and address a much broader range of global problems," she said.

Ministers also agreed to move towards making companies declare their environmental impact in a more standard way so investors can decided more easily whether to fund them, a key goal for Britain.

Current global tax rules date back to the 1920s and struggle with multinational tech giants that sell services remotely and attribute much of their profits to intellectual property held in low-tax jurisdictions.

Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice-president for global affairs and a former British deputy prime minister, said: "We want the international tax reform process to succeed and recognise this could mean Facebook paying more tax, and in different places."

But Italy, which will seek wider international backing for the plans at a meeting of the G20 in Venice next month, said the proposals were not just aimed at U.S. firms.

Yellen said European countries would scrap existing digital services taxes which the United States says discriminate against U.S. businesses as the new global rules go into effect.

"There is broad agreement that these two things go hand in hand," she said.

Key details remain to be negotiated over the coming months. Saturday's agreement says only "the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises" would be affected.

European countries had been concerned that this could exclude Amazon - which has lower profit margins than most tech companies - but Yellen said she expected it would be included.

How tax revenues will be split is not finalised either, and any deal will also need to pass the U.S. Congress.

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said he would push for a higher minimum tax, calling 15% "a starting point".

Some campaign groups also condemned what they saw as a lack of ambition. "They are setting the bar so low that companies can just step over it," Oxfam's head of inequality policy, Max Lawson, said.

But Irish finance minister Paschal Donohoe, whose country is potentially affected because of its 12.5% tax rate, said any global deal also needed to take account of smaller nations.

The G7 includes the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57372682

A landmark deal struck by rich nations to make multinational companies pay more tax has been criticised by campaigners for not going far enough.

G7 finance ministers meeting in London agreed to battle tax avoidance by making big companies pay more tax in the countries where they do business.

Tech giants firms likely to be impacted have welcomed the new rules.

But the charity Oxfam says an agreed 15% global minimum corporate tax rate is "far too low" to make a difference.

The deal announced on Saturday between the G7 group of wealthy nations - US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan, plus the EU - could see billions of dollars flow to governments to pay off debts incurred during the Covid crisis.

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, who hosted the summit, said the agreement would create "a fairer tax system fit for the 21st Century". The deal agreed in principle that multinational companies pay a minimum tax rate of at least 15% in each country they operate.

But aid charities said the agreed rate is too low and would not stop tax havens from operating.

"It's absurd for the G7 to claim it is 'overhauling' a broken global tax system by setting up a global minimum corporate tax rate that is similar to the soft rates charged by tax havens like Ireland, Switzerland and Singapore," said Oxfam's executive director Gabriela Bucher. "They are setting the bar so low that companies can just step over it."

She said the deal was unfair as it would benefit G7 states, where many of the big companies are headquartered, at the expense of poorer nations.

Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network, called the deal a "turning point" but said it remained "extremely unfair".

"We've got one step of the way today - the idea of a minimum tax rate - what we need is to make sure that the benefits of that, the revenues, are distributed fairly around the world," he told the BBC.

The agreement will be considered at a meeting next month of the G20, including China and India.

Governments have long grappled with the challenge of taxing global companies operating across many countries.

That challenge has grown with the boom in huge tech corporations like Amazon and Facebook.

At the moment companies can set up local branches in countries that have relatively low corporate tax rates and declare profits there.

That means they only pay the local rate of tax, even if the profits mainly come from sales made elsewhere. This is legal and commonly done.

The deal aims to stop this from happening in two ways.

Firstly the G7 will aim to make companies pay more tax in the countries where they are selling their products or services, rather than wherever they end up declaring their profits.

Secondly, they want a global minimum tax rate so as to avoid countries undercutting each other with low tax rates.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/08/g7-plan-will-slash-uk-tax-revenue-from-us-tech-firms-say-experts

Experts have warned that US tech companies, including Google, Amazon and Facebook, could pay less tax in the UK and several other big economies under global reforms agreed at the weekend by the G7.

In a key stumbling block emerging days after the landmark deal, research from the TaxWatch campaign group indicates that the UK Treasury stands to lose about £230m from the taxes paid each year by four of the big US tech firms.

The study estimates that Facebook, Google, eBay, and Amazon, contribute about £330m between them to the UK’s digital services tax – a levy on internet search providers, online marketplaces and social media firms. The tax was launched last year as a stopgap measure until a global deal could be reached.

TaxWatch said the UK tax bills paid by these firms would fall to just over £100m under the G7 plan.

The campaign group calculated the sum by analysing the UK accounts of each company for 2019, the most recent year when data was available. Although precise details of the global tax changes are still being negotiated and limited information has been published so far, the group estimated tax liabilities based on details in the G7 communique published last weekend.

According to the research, Google is estimated to contribute £219m to the digital services tax but would pay just £60m to the UK exchequer under the G7 plan.

For Facebook the tax take would fall from £58m to £28m. For Amazon it would drop from £50m to £10m, and for eBay from £19m to £3.8m.

The figures are estimates because the Treasury does not publish a breakdown of the amount each firm contributes to its digital services tax.

A Treasury spokesperson said the final details of the rules still needed to be worked through, and that the impact on tax revenues would be assessed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

“The historic global tax agreement backed by G7 finance ministers reforms the global tax system to make it fit for the global digital age, achieving a level playing field for all types of companies. The deal makes sure that the system is fair, so that the right companies pay the right tax in the right places,” he added.

Sources close to the talks said the UK and EU nations were continuing to push for more in tax to be raised within their borders by large US tech companies. It comes ahead of the next key moment for tax reforms, at a meeting of the G20 in Venice in July.

Chris Sanger, global government and risk tax leader at the accountancy firm EY, said: “The UK will not want to turn off the taxing of those global multinationals, under the digital services tax, until it feels it has another tax that can deliver equally or better. There is still a lot of detail to be worked through in this space.”

At the heart of the issue are the two “pillars” in the G7 deal: one enables countries to tax large company profits based on their sales in that market, and a second sets a minimum global corporation tax rate. The global minimum would be set at a rate of at least 15% and capture thousands of firms and be paid in their home countries.

Because so many multinationals have their headquarters in the US, other nations are demanding that the largest companies also pay tax in nations where they generate their revenues. So under pillar one, the UK should receive a portion of the tax generated in the country by Apple and Facebook.

A mechanism for redistributing the profits of the largest companies is under discussion. A list of 100 companies whose profits could be divvied up in this way was presented at the G7. The list remains confidential, though is understood to include tech companies, but not banks or extractive firms such as mining and oil groups.

The redistribution mechanism would apply to companies with “superprofits” – profit margins exceeding 10% of revenues.

Although experts believe pillar one redistribution would generate relatively little for the UK, the Treasury would still gain an estimated £7.9bn each year from the global minimum rate under pillar two. This is because the global minimum tax is paid to a firm’s home country, and the UK has several large multinationals on its shores that would be caught.

Analysts at the EU Tax Observatory have suggested firms such as BT, Barclays, HSBC and BP, could be caught up in the pillar two arrangement.

Sources close to the tax reforms, which are being negotiated between 139 countries at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), said the UK and EU finance ministries were pushing for tougher concessions from Washington to raise more in tax from large US companies outside their home jurisdiction.

The Biden administration has however focused minds by threatening to impose punitive tariffs on imports from the UK and five other countries in retaliation for digital services taxes recently imposed on US corporations.

Tax campaigners warned that lower-income countries, which do not have multinationals based on their shores to benefit from a global minimum tax, would not stand to gain much from the limited amount of tax to be raised from pillar one. This could become a key sticking point at wider G20 talks in Venice next month.

George Turner, director of TaxWatch, said: “It seems to me this is a good deal for the US, they get to tax their multinationals more, and they get to protect themselves from companies trying to [go] offshore by making it a global deal.

“The fact Facebook and Google end up paying less tax in the UK under this deal is controversial, I don’t think you can get away from that. It wasn’t the aim of the whole game.”

 

[MenInG]

President Joe Biden is facing calls to introduce a wealth tax following a report alleging America's richest executives, including Elon Musk and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, have avoided paying income tax - some over several years.

ProPublica, the not-for-profit investigative journalism organisation, said its findings showed the tax bills were especially low when compared with their soaring wealth and other assets.

It calculated the wealth of the 25 richest Americans collectively jumped by $401bn (£283bn) from 2014 to 2018.

They paid, ProPublica said, $13.6bn (£9.6bn) in federal income taxes over those years - equal to just 3.4% of the increase in their overall fortunes.

This is down to tax strategies which are perfectly legal.

Tax avoidance measures can include reductions for charitable donations or by taking no wages - taxed at up to 37% - and benefiting instead mainly from investment income at a usual lower rate of 20%.

The report alleged that Amazon founder and departing CEO Jeff Bezos paid no income tax at all in 2007 and 2011.

It was the same for Tesla and Space X founder Elon Musk in 2018.

Members of the Patriotic Millionaires hold a federal tax filing day protest outside the apartment of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, to demand he pay his fair share of taxes, in New York City, U.S., May 17, 2021.

The analysis showed financier George Soros - known by some as the man who broke the Bank of England because of a short sale on sterling that netted him $1bn in 1992 - went three straight years without paying federal income tax.

A spokesman for Mr Soros, who has supported higher taxes on the rich, told ProPublica that he had lost money on his investments from 2016 to 2018 and so did not owe federal income tax for those years.

Mr Musk, the AP news agency reported, responded to ProPublica's initial request for comment with a punctuation mark "?''.

America's tax system is under greater strain as Mr Biden embarks on a series of spending sprees, including a massive $2.3trn infrastructure programme, at a time when government borrowing has rocketed to pay for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democrat supporters used the publication of the ProPublica papers to demand the president introduce a tax on wealth rather than inflict more financial pain on ordinary households.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are among the cheerleaders.

Ms Warren tweeted on Tuesday: "Our tax system is rigged for billionaires who don't make their fortunes through income, like working families do.

"The evidence is abundantly clear: it is time for a #WealthTax in America to make the ultra-rich finally pay their fair share."

Mr Biden has previously ordered a crackdown on offshore tax evasion amid estimates the US government loses up to $120bn annually from individuals and corporations cheating the system.

However, a Senate finance committee hearing was told earlier in the day by the IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig that his team was "outgunned" when it came to enforcement.

The G7 group of wealthy democracies, which includes the US and Britain, agreed to support a global minimum corporate tax rate of at least 15% to deter multinational companies from avoiding taxes by stashing profits in low-rate countries.

SKY

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Like Again? lol Why is America hell bent on killing its own corporations, Oil and Airline Companies are already screwed.. Texas is going down but they wanna take Cali down with it.

Because they act like thugs.

Not sure how this will be implemented but FB literally threatens its competitors to get bought or they will copy their features and run them out of business.

When regulations are weak, businesses will run like cartels and hold the market hostage.

The same situation in Bollywood.

Nepotism is NOT the issue here.

Its the cartel like behavior that makes people pariah cos no one wants to work with them in fear of retribution from the powerful people.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/10/g20-backs-crackdown-on-multinationals-use-of-tax-havens

Finance chiefs of the G20 economies have endorsed a landmark move to stop multinationals shifting profits to tax havens and will also warn that Covid variants threaten the global economic recovery.

At talks on Saturday, they also acknowledged the need to ensure fair access to vaccines in poorer countries. But a draft communique to be rubber-stamped at the meeting in Venice did not contain specific proposals on how to achieve that.

The tax deal was expected to be the biggest fresh policy initiative emerging from their talks. It caps eight years of wrangling over the issue. The aim is for national leaders to give it a final blessing at an October G20 summit in Rome.

The pact would establish a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15% to deter multinationals from shopping around for the lowest tax rate. It would also shift the way that highly profitable multinationals such as Amazon and Google are taxed, basing it partly on where they sell products and services, rather than on the location of their headquarters.

The German finance minister, Olaf Scholz, confirmed that all G20 economies were on board for the pact, while the US Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, said a handful of smaller countries still opposed to it, such as low-tax Ireland and Hungary, would be encouraged to sign up by October.

“We’ll be trying to do that, but I should emphasise it’s not essential that every country be on board,” she said. “This agreement contains a kind of enforcement mechanism that can be used to make sure that countries that are holdouts are not able to undermine … the operation of this global agreement.”

The G20 members account for more than 80% of global gross domestic product, 75% of global trade and 60% of the population of the planet. They include the US, Japan, Britain, France, Germany and India.

In addition to EU resisters Ireland, Estonia and Hungary, other countries that have not signed on include Kenya, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Barbados, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Among other sticking points, a fight in the US Congress over Joe Biden’s planned tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans could cause problems, as could a separate EU plan for a digital levy on tech companies.

US Treasury officials say the EU plan is not consistent with the wider global deal, even if the levy is largely aimed at European firms.

Beyond the tax agreement, the G20 will address concerns that the rise of the fast-spreading Delta coronavirus variant, combined with unequal access to vaccines, pose risks to global economic recovery.

Citing improvements in the global outlook so far, the draft adds: “However, the recovery is characterised by great divergences across and within countries and remains exposed to downside risks, in particular the spread of new variants of the Covid-19 virus and different paces of vaccination.”

A Reuters tally of new Covid-19 infections shows them rising in 69 countries, with the daily rate pointing upwards since late-June and now hitting 478,000.

“We all have to improve our vaccination performance everywhere around the world,” said the French finance minister, Bruno Le Maire. “We have very good economic forecasts for the G20 economies and the single hurdle on the way to a quick, solid economic rebound is the risk of having a new wave.”

The IMF managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, said the world was facing “a worsening two-track recovery” partly driven by the differences in vaccine availability.

“It is a critical moment that calls for urgent action by the G20 and policymakers across the globe,” she said before the meeting.

The communique, while stressing support for “equitable global sharing” of vaccines, did not propose concrete new measures, merely acknowledging a recommendation for $50bn(£36bn) in new vaccine financing by the IMF, World Bank, World Health Organiation and World Trade Organization.

The IMF is also pushing G20 countries to decide on a clear path for allowing rich countries to contribute $100bn of newly issued IMF reserves to poorer countries.

The IMF first deputy managing director, Geoffrey Okamoto, told Reuters his goal was to be able to present a viable option for channeling newly issued special drawing rights to countries in need by the time a fresh $650bn allocation is completed at the end of August.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-house-members-introduce-bill-targeting-apple-google-app-stores-2021-08-13/

A Republican and a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill aimed at reining in powerful app stores run by companies like Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google.

The bill is a companion to a measure introduced this week by a bipartisan trio of senators which would bar big app stores from requiring app providers to use alternate app stores and payment systems.

Representative Ken Buck, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee antitrust panel, introduced the measure along with Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat.

"For far too long, companies like Google and Apple have had a stranglehold on app developers who are forced to take whatever terms these monopolists set in order to reach their customers," Buck said in an email statement.

U.S. consumers spent nearly $33 billion last year in mobile app stores and downloaded 13.4 billion apps, Buck's office said in a statement.

Apple has previously defended its app store as "an unprecedented engine of economic growth and innovation, one that now supports more than 2.1 million jobs across all 50 states."

The stakes are high for Apple, whose App Store anchors its $53.8 billion services business as the smartphone market has matured.

Google has said that Android phones often have two or more app stores preloaded.

The House Judiciary Committee passed six antitrust measures in June, most of them aimed at hemming in tech giants Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965

A former Facebook employee has told US lawmakers that the company's sites and apps "harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy".

Frances Haugen, a 37-year-old former product manager turned whistleblower, heavily criticised the company at a hearing on Capitol Hill.

Facebook has faced growing scrutiny and increasing calls for its regulation.

Founder Mark Zuckerberg hit back, saying recent coverage painted a "false picture" of the company.

In a letter to staff, he said many of the claims "don't make any sense", pointing to their efforts in fighting harmful content, establishing transparency and creating "an industry-leading research program to under these important issues".

"We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health," he said in the letter, made public on his Facebook page. "It's difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives."

Facebook is the world's most popular social media site. The company says it has 2.7 billion monthly active users. Hundreds of millions of people also use the company's other products, including WhatsApp and Instagram.

But it has been criticised for everything from failing to protect users' privacy to not doing enough to halt the spread of disinformation.

Ms Haugen told CBS News on Sunday that she had shared a number of internal Facebook documents with the Wall Street Journal in recent weeks.

Using the documents, the WSJ reported that research carried out by Instagram showed the app could harm girls' mental health.

This was a theme Ms Haugen continued during her testimony on Tuesday. "The company's leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won't make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people," she said.

She criticised Mark Zuckerberg for having wide-ranging control, saying that there is "no one currently holding Mark accountable but himself."

And she praised the massive outage of Facebook services on Monday, which affected users around the world.

"Yesterday we saw Facebook taken off the internet," she said. "I don't know why it went down, but I know that for more than five hours, Facebook wasn't used to deepen divides, destabilise democracies and make young girls and women feel bad about their bodies."

The answer, she told senators, was congressional oversight. "We must act now," she said.

Mr Zuckerberg, in his letter, said the research into Instagram had been mischaracterised and that many young people had positive experiences of using the platform. But he said "it's very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids".

On Monday's outage, he said the deeper concern was not "how many people switch to competitive services or how much money we lose, but what it means for the people who rely on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their businesses, or support their communities".

Both Republican and Democratic senators on Tuesday were united in the need for change at the company - a rare topic of agreement between the two political parties.

"The damage to self-interest and self-worth inflicted by Facebook today will haunt a generation," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said.

"Big Tech now faces the Big Tobacco jaw-dropping moment of truth," he added, a reference to how tobacco firms hid the harmful effects of their products.

Fellow Republican Dan Sullivan said the world would look back and ask "What the hell were we thinking?" in light of the revelations about Facebook's impact on children.

In a statement issued after the hearing, Facebook said it did not agree with Ms Haugen's "characterisation of the many issues she testified about". But it did agree that "it's time to begin to create standard rules for the internet."

"It's been 25 years since the rules for the internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act," the statement read.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Apple in big trouble
====

Apple sued in a landmark iPhone monopoly lawsuit​

The US Justice Department and more than a dozen states filed a blockbuster antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, accusing the giant company of illegally monopolizing the smartphone market. It’s the largest in a recent string of Big Tech companies to face antitrust complaints from the US government, which is cracking down on the massive industry whose power has gone largely unchecked over the past several decades.

“Apple charges as much as nearly $1,600 for an iPhone, but as our complaint alleges, Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits but by violating federal antitrust law,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland at a news conference announcing the suit, which was filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey.

“Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break the law,” he added.

The long-anticipated lawsuit comes after years of allegations by critics that Apple has harmed competition with restrictive app store terms, high fees and its “walled-garden” approach to its hardware and software: Apple famously makes its tech easy to use, but it achieves that by tightly controlling - and in some cases, restricting - how third-party companies can interact with the tech behemoth’s products and services. In some cases, Apple may give its own products better access and features than its competitors.

The company said it denied the lawsuit’s allegations and would fight them.

“Monopolies like Apple’s threaten the free and fair markets upon which our economy is based. They stifle innovation. They hurt producers and workers and increase cost for consumers,” Garland said Thursday. “If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly. But there’s a law for that.”

For example, Apple allows iPhone customers to send high-quality photos and videos seamlessly to one another, but multimedia texts to Android phones are slower and grainy. The company late last year relented and agreed to improve the quality standard it uses to interact with Android phones via text message – but it still maintains those messages in green bubbles, creating a kind of class divide, critics argue.

The company also gives its own products the ability to access certain parts of its hardware that it restricts other companies from using. That unleashes an almost magical experience for how iPhones interact with AirTags, when competitors’ products are far more limited in their capabilities.

“Apple creates barriers that make it extremely difficult and expensive for both users and developers to venture outside the Apple ecosystem,” Garland said on Thursday.

This year, European regulations forced Apple to give other companies access to the iPhone’s tap-to-pay hardware chip, enabling the creation of competing digital wallets. But those rules are limited to the European Union.

And Apple maintains a large 30% commission on most sales through its app store – a frequent complaint from companies that try to sell subscriptions, saying Apple’s enormous share of the smartphone market forces them to pay what they argue is an unnecessarily high commission.

“We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it,” Apple said in a statement.

Thursday’s suit claims Apple has illegally monopolized smartphone markets by using a complex web of contractual terms that harm everything from text messaging to mobile payments. Among other things, the DOJ says, Apple has used its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services from the public; degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones; restricted how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones; and hindered rival payment solutions.

Source: CNN

 

[JaDed]

Dumbest DOJ in my history of reading about them, they will lose this case like they have been against Tech in the entire term.

Apple has consistently said IOS AND APP store are their proprietary systems yet DOJ is doing the exact same nonsense.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Nvidia beats Apple and Microsoft to become the world’s first $4 trillion public company​

Nvidia on Wednesday hit $4 trillion in market value, making it the first publicly traded company to hit that milestone.

Nvidia stock rose 2.5% after the market opened on Wednesday to hit an intraday record high that pushed its market value above the $4 trillion mark.

The US chipmaker has had a remarkable march to record highs and has soared around 20% this year, thanks to its leading role powering the artificial intelligence boom.

Nvidia beat Apple and Microsoft to the $4 trillion mark. Apple entered this year as the world’s most valuable company at just about $3.9 trillion before tumbling in recent months amid President Donald Trump’s tariff turmoil. Nvidia and Microsoft traded places as the world’s most valuable company in recent months, before Nvidia surged ahead to reach the $4 trillion mark first.

Nvidia’s chips power the data centers that companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Google need to fuel their AI models and cloud services — and AI investments are only expected to grow. Global spending on AI infrastructure is expected to surpass $200 billion by 2028, according to market research firm The International Data Corporation.

Nvidia generated $44.1 billion in revenue for the quarter that ended in April, up 69% from the same period a year ago.

“There is one company in the world that is the foundation for the AI Revolution and that is Nvidia,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives wrote in a research note on June 27.

Nvidia co-founder and CEO Jensen Huang delivers the first keynote speech of Computex 2025 at the Taipei Music Center in Taipei on May 19, 2025.
Nvidia’s hit from being caught in the US-China tech war isn’t as bad as expected

The company rose to fame for its graphics processing units, which have become a favorite among PC gamers. Now it is charging ahead with new AI models designed to power autonomous robots and vehicles. At its annual developers conference in March, it announced an update to its sought-after Blackwell chip called Blackwell Ultra, which it says will better support AI models with more sophisticated reasoning capabilities.

Nvidia hit $1 trillion in May 2023.

“This is a historical moment for Nvidia, the tech space flexing its muscles, and speaks to the AI Revolution hitting its next stage of growth led by the one chip fueling AI … Nvidia,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in emailed commentary Wednesday. He added that he believes Microsoft, which currently has a valuation around $3.77 trillion, will also cross the $4 trillion threshold this summer.

Nvidia’s role in the AI gold rush has made CEO Jensen Huang one of the world’s richest people — as of Tuesday, Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index pegged him as the tenth wealthiest person, with a net worth of $140 billion. The executive has also found himself in Trump’s orbit, raising his profile beyond the tech industry.

Huang has met with the president and was among the several high-profile tech executives to accompany him during a Saudi Arabia trip in May. Nvidia is also a partner in Project Stargate, the $500 billion AI infrastructure initiative that Trump announced in January and touted as key to his push to grow America’s tech footprint.

But that success hasn’t come without roadblocks. Chinese startup DeepSeek shook Wall Street and Silicon Valley with its powerful yet supposedly low-cost AI model earlier this year, raising questions about whether costly chips and hardware are necessary to advance AI — and sending Nvidia’s stock plunging in January.

Nvidia has also been caught in the AI race between Washington and Beijing: The company said it missed out on $2.5 billion in additional revenue for the fiscal quarter that ended in April because of export restrictions on its H20 AI chips to China.

Source: CNN

 

[BouncerGuy]

Google told to pay $425m in privacy lawsuit

A US federal court has told Google to pay $425m (£316.3m) for breaching users' privacy by collecting data from millions of users even after they had turned off a tracking feature in their Google accounts.

The verdict comes after a group of users brought the case claiming Google accessed users' mobile devices to collect, save and use their data, in violation of privacy assurances in its Web & App Activity setting.

They had been seeking more than $31bn in damages.

"This decision misunderstands how our products work, and we will appeal it. Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalisation, we honour that choice," a Google spokesperson told the BBC.

The jury in the case found the internet search giant liable to two of three claims of privacy violations but said the firm had not acted with malice.

The class action lawsuit, covering about 98 million Google users and 174 million devices, was filed in July 2020.

The plaintiffs alleged that Google's collection practices extended to hundreds of thousands of smartphone apps, including those for ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, e-commerce giants Alibaba and Amazon, and Meta's social networks Instagram and Facebook.

Google says that when users turn off Web & App Activity in their account, businesses using Google Analytics may still collect data about their use of sites and apps but that this information does not identify individual users and respects their privacy choices.

Separately this week, shares in Google's parent company Alphabet jumped by more than 9% on Wednesday after a US federal judge ruled that it would not have to sell its Chrome web browser but must share information with competitors.

The remedies decided by District Judge Amit Mehta emerged after a years-long court battle over Google's dominance in online search.

The case centred on Google's position as the default search engine on a range of its own products such as Android and Chrome as well as others made by the likes of Apple.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) had demanded that Google sell Chrome - Tuesday's decision means the tech giant can keep it but it will be barred from having exclusive contracts and must share search data with rivals.

Google faces a separate competition case overseen by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled in April that Google holds a monopoly in advertising technology.

She will oversee a trial aimed at finding remedies later this month.

BBC