Some of the world's biggest tech companies pledged to work together to guard against the dangers of artificial intelligence as they wrapped up a two-day AI summit, also attended by multiple governments, in Seoul.

Sector leaders from South Korea's Samsung Electronics to Google promised at the event, co-hosted with Britain, to "minimise risks" and develop new AI models responsibly, even as they push to move the cutting-edge field forward.

The fresh commitment, codified in a so-called Seoul AI Business Pledge Wednesday plus a new round of safety commitments announced the previous day, build on the consensus reached at the inaugural global AI safety summit at Bletchley Park in Britain last year.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/apple-launches-ios-update-to-prevent-reappearance-of-deleted-photos-724277">Apple launches iOS update to prevent reappearance of deleted photos</a>

Tuesday's commitment saw companies including OpenAI and Google DeepMind promise to share how they assess the risks of their technology -- including those "deemed intolerable" and how they will ensure such thresholds are not crossed.

But experts warned it was hard for regulators to understand and manage AI when the sector was developing so rapidly.

"I think that's a really, really big problem," said Markus Anderljung, head of policy at the Centre for the Governance of AI, a non-profit research body based in Oxford, Britain.

"Dealing with AI, I expect to be one of the biggest challenges that governments all across the world will have over the next couple of decades."

"The world will need to have some kind of joint understanding of what are the risks from these sort of most advanced general models," he said.

Michelle Donelan, UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, said in Seoul on Wednesday that "as the pace of AI development accelerates, we must match that speed... if we are to grip the risks."

She said there would be more opportunities at the next AI summit in France to "push the boundaries" in terms of testing and evaluating new technology.

"Simultaneously, we must turn our attention to risk mitigation outside these models, ensuring that society as a whole becomes resilient to the risks posed by AI," Donelan said.

<h2>- AI inequality -</h2>

The stratospheric success of ChatGPT soon after its 2022 release sparked a gold rush in generative AI, with tech firms around the world pouring billions of dollars into developing their own models.

Such AI models can generate text, photos, audio and even video from simple prompts and its proponents have heralded them as breakthroughs that will improve lives and businesses around the world.

However, critics, rights activists and governments have warned that they can be misused in a wide variety of ways, including the manipulation of voters through fake news stories or "deepfake" pictures and videos of politicians.

Many have called for international standards to govern the development and use of AI.

"I think there's increased realisation that we need global cooperation to really think about the issues and harms of artificial intelligence. AI doesn't know borders," said Rumman Chowdhury, an AI ethics expert who leads Humane Intelligence, an independent non-profit that evaluates and assesses AI models.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/electric-cars-more-likely-to-hit-pedestrians-than-fuel-cars-study-724202">Electric cars more likely to hit pedestrians than fuel cars: Study</a>

Chowdhury told AFP that it is not just the "runaway AI" of science fiction nightmares that is a huge concern, but issues such as rampant inequality in the sector.

"All AI is just built, developed and the profits reaped (by) very, very few people and organisations," she told AFP on the sidelines of the Seoul summit.

People in developing nations such as India "are often the staff that does the clean-up. They're the data annotators, they're the content moderators. They're scrubbing the ground so that everybody else can walk on pristine territory". 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Some of the world's biggest tech companies pledged to work together to guard against the dangers of artificial intelligence as they wrapped up a two-day AI summit, also attended by multiple governments, in Seoul.

Some of the world's biggest tech companies pledged to work together to guard against the dangers of artificial intelligence as they wrapped up a two-day AI summit, also attended by multiple governments, in Seoul. Sector leaders from South Korea's Samsung Electronics to Google promised at the event, co-hosted with Britain, to "minimise risks" and develop new AI models responsibly, even as they push to move the cutting-edge field forward. The fresh commitment, codified in a so-called Seoul AI Business Pledge Wednesday plus a new round of safety commitments announced the previous day, build on the consensus reached at the inaugural global AI safety summit at Bletchley Park in Britain last year. Also Read | Apple launches iOS update to prevent reappearance of deleted photos Tuesday's commitment saw companies including OpenAI and Google DeepMind promise to share how they assess the risks of their technology -- including those "deemed intolerable" and how they will ensure such thresholds are not crossed. But experts warned it was hard for regulators to understand and manage AI when the sector was developing so rapidly. "I think that's a really, really big problem," said Markus Anderljung, head of policy at the Centre for the Governance of AI, a non-profit research body based in Oxford, Britain. "Dealing with AI, I expect to be one of the biggest challenges that governments all across the world will have over the next couple of decades." "The world will need to have some kind of joint understanding of what are the risks from these sort of most advanced general models," he said. Michelle Donelan, UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, said in Seoul on Wednesday that "as the pace of AI development accelerates, we must match that speed... if we are to grip the risks." She said there would be more opportunities at the next AI summit in France to "push the boundaries" in terms of testing and evaluating new technology. "Simultaneously, we must turn our attention to risk mitigation outside these models, ensuring that society as a whole becomes resilient to the risks posed by AI," Donelan said. - AI inequality - The stratospheric success of ChatGPT soon after its 2022 release sparked a gold rush in generative AI, with tech firms around the world pouring billions of dollars into developing their own models. Such AI models can generate text, photos, audio and even video from simple prompts and its proponents have heralded them as breakthroughs that will improve lives and businesses around the world. However, critics, rights activists and governments have warned that they can be misused in a wide variety of ways, including the manipulation of voters through fake news stories or "deepfake" pictures and videos of politicians. Many have called for international standards to govern the development and use of AI. "I think there's increased realisation that we need global cooperation to really think about the issues and harms of artificial intelligence. AI doesn't know borders," said Rumman Chowdhury, an AI ethics expert who leads Humane Intelligence, an independent non-profit that evaluates and assesses AI models. Also Read | Electric cars more likely to hit pedestrians than fuel cars: Study Chowdhury told AFP that it is not just the "runaway AI" of science fiction nightmares that is a huge concern, but issues such as rampant inequality in the sector. "All AI is just built, developed and the profits reaped (by) very, very few people and organisations," she told AFP on the sidelines of the Seoul summit. People in developing nations such as India "are often the staff that does the clean-up. They're the data annotators, they're the content moderators. They're scrubbing the ground so that everybody else can walk on pristine territory". (With inputs from agencies)

World’s biggest tech companies pledge ‘responsible’ development of AI

In a patriarchal society, a woman's worth has long been attached to her vagina and its "purity". This obsession has, for years, given way to harmful methods to maintain the so-called purity.&nbsp;

The latest fad in this problematic trend are 'yoni pearls' and as per a report by the Guardian, social media giants Meta, YouTube, and Google are profiting from posts promoting these useless and harmful 'health products' to women in Kenya.

<h2>Detox or toxic?</h2>

As per research by media collective Fambua, big tech firms are amplifying content promising unproven cures for infertility and herbs that can supposedly fight off cancer.

Fambua found Facebook pages selling these yoni pearls that as per them can "cleanse" the uterus and protect women from cervical cancer.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/third-drug-trafficking-convict-executed-in-singapore-in-less-than-a-week-621999">Third drug trafficking convict executed in Singapore in less than a week</a>

These yoni pearls are nothing but mesh wrapped herbs that are to be inserted via the vagina and which, as per claims, "detoxes past lovers from the womb space to free yourself and bring in more aligned lover or lovers."

<img alt="Yoni" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="47935fae-691d-4b71-9ba0-5b9fb19cc836" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/New%20wion%20%2866%29.png" />

Bogus cures like steaming the vagina — by sitting over a bowl of boiling water is also being promoted as a cure for endometriosis.&nbsp;

<h2>Big tech profiteering off hoaxes</h2>

As per the media collective's report, "Facebook’s own algorithms are often amplifying this content, and are letting ads for detox remedies target Kenyan users."

It further points out that all these so-called remedies and the supposed health benefits are not backed by any scientific evidence.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/move-over-blue-whale-scientists-discover-40-million-year-old-earths-biggest-animal-ever-621809">Not blue whale, this 40mn-year-old animal is largest ever to have lived on Earth</a>

"Google and YouTube are also part of this harmful system, profiting off ads for vaginal detox products despite evident health risks," claims the report.

<h2>'Asleep at the wheel'</h2>

"What is most alarming is how freely these adverts are available. People are not just able to sell things that are harmful, but to do so publicly and even pay for these adverts to go viral. There's an audacious impunity about it," says research lead Wanjiru Nguhi.

"Scam products are being delivered into the Kenyan marketplace while big tech is asleep at the wheel," remarks Kristina Wilfore, co-founder of ShePersisted, an initiative to address gendered disinformation.

<h2>Vaginal detox</h2>

It's not just ads on social media, these products have also been made popular by celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Vera Sidika, the star of the Real Housewives of Nairobi.

As per The Guardian, these vaginal detox products sell for about 1,000 Kenyan shillings (or around $7). Medical experts caution against the use of these 'yoni pearls' and say that these are not only unnecessary but can also cause pain and infections.

Researchers say that these marketing fads are attempting to exploit pressures on women to conform to unattainable standards of sexuality and ill-informed notions of female hygiene.&nbsp;

Even as experts warn against such bogus products, Meta, as per the Guardian, said the vaginal detox content did not violate its policies.&nbsp;"We remove content that promotes harmful miracle cures for health issues when the treatments are widely deemed likely to directly contribute to the risk of serious injury or death," said the company in a statement.&nbsp;Google and YouTube, too, have similar misinformation policies, which require material to present danger of bodily harm or be life-threatening in order for it to be removed.

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In a patriarchal society, a woman's worth has long been attached to her vagina and its "purity". This obsession has, for years, given way to harmful methods to maintain the so-called purity.

In a patriarchal society, a woman's worth has long been attached to her vagina and its "purity". This obsession has, for years, given way to harmful methods to maintain the so-called purity. The latest fad in this problematic trend are 'yoni pearls' and as per a report by the Guardian, social media giants Meta, YouTube, and Google are profiting from posts promoting these useless and harmful 'health products' to women in Kenya. Detox or toxic? As per research by media collective Fambua, big tech firms are amplifying content promising unproven cures for infertility and herbs that can supposedly fight off cancer. Fambua found Facebook pages selling these yoni pearls that as per them can "cleanse" the uterus and protect women from cervical cancer. Also read | Third drug trafficking convict executed in Singapore in less than a week These yoni pearls are nothing but mesh wrapped herbs that are to be inserted via the vagina and which, as per claims, "detoxes past lovers from the womb space to free yourself and bring in more aligned lover or lovers." Bogus cures like steaming the vagina — by sitting over a bowl of boiling water is also being promoted as a cure for endometriosis. Big tech profiteering off hoaxes As per the media collective's report, "Facebook’s own algorithms are often amplifying this content, and are letting ads for detox remedies target Kenyan users." It further points out that all these so-called remedies and the supposed health benefits are not backed by any scientific evidence. Also read | Not blue whale, this 40mn-year-old animal is largest ever to have lived on Earth "Google and YouTube are also part of this harmful system, profiting off ads for vaginal detox products despite evident health risks," claims the report. 'Asleep at the wheel' "What is most alarming is how freely these adverts are available. People are not just able to sell things that are harmful, but to do so publicly and even pay for these adverts to go viral. There's an audacious impunity about it," says research lead Wanjiru Nguhi. "Scam products are being delivered into the Kenyan marketplace while big tech is asleep at the wheel," remarks Kristina Wilfore, co-founder of ShePersisted, an initiative to address gendered disinformation. Vaginal detox It's not just ads on social media, these products have also been made popular by celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Vera Sidika, the star of the Real Housewives of Nairobi. As per The Guardian, these vaginal detox products sell for about 1,000 Kenyan shillings (or around $7). Medical experts caution against the use of these 'yoni pearls' and say that these are not only unnecessary but can also cause pain and infections. Researchers say that these marketing fads are attempting to exploit pressures on women to conform to unattainable standards of sexuality and ill-informed notions of female hygiene. Even as experts warn against such bogus products, Meta, as per the Guardian, said the vaginal detox content did not violate its policies. "We remove content that promotes harmful miracle cures for health issues when the treatments are widely deemed likely to directly contribute to the risk of serious injury or death," said the company in a statement. Google and YouTube, too, have similar misinformation policies, which require material to present danger of bodily harm or be life-threatening in order for it to be removed. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Facebook, Google, YouTube pushing harmful 'misogynistic' trends like 'yoni pearls' to Kenyan women

After the tsunami of mass layoffs, big tech giants are now hiring lower-paid tech workers from foreign countries. Many of the big Silicon Valley companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Zoom, Salesforce and Palantir have applied for thousands of H-1B worker visas this year, reported independent investigative journalist Lee Fang, citing a US Department of Labor data.

Ironically, thousands of workers on H-1B visas, including several Indians, have been affected by the layoffs in the United States, leading many to share the news on social media seeking new job opportunities, the report noted. Many laid-off employees have either lost or will soon lose the right to stay in the US.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-to-delete-inactive-accounts-including-content-of-google-drive-and-youtube-should-you-worry-593285">Google to delete inactive accounts, including content of Google Drive and YouTube- Should you worry?</a>

According to the report, Google filed applications for H-1B visas to hire lower-paid workers from foreign countries just a month after announcing its plan to cut 12,000 jobs worldwide in January. The visas were for roles including software engineers, analytical consultants, and user experience researchers, with some requests aimed at new Google employees to join in August only.&nbsp;

Waymo, a self-driving cars company owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet also reportedly filed similar H-1B applications to hire engineers.&nbsp;

H-1B visas are used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, which has always been a contentious issue in the immigration debate. Critics say that these visas are used to undercut US citizens and legal permanent residents.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;Big tech's innovative layoff strategy: Resign voluntarily, take home 1-hr pay | Newspoint&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/big-techs-innovative-layoff-strategy-resign-voluntarily-take-home-1-hr-pay-newspoint-wion-581996/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

These visas are issued for three years and can be further extended for another three years.&nbsp;

Fang cited a 2017 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found that “wages for US computer scientists would have been 2.6% to 5.1% higher” while “employment in computer science for US workers would have been 6.1% to 10.8% higher” in 2001 if there has been no immigration.&nbsp;

Some even critique that the number of soaring applications in the technology industry raises “serious concerns” as immigrants manipulate the system to gain an unfair advantage.&nbsp;

According to Fang, tech firms have hired lobbyists to pressure lawmakers and the Biden administration to expand the number of H-1B visas that are issued. Each year, up to 85,000 people are selected for H-1B visas.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/shell-to-use-new-ai-based-technology-in-deep-sea-exploration-in-partnership-with-sparkcognition-593318">Shell to use new AI-based technology in deep-sea exploration in partnership with SparkCognition</a>

The website Layoffs.fyi, which keeps running a tally of the total number of workers who have lost their jobs this year, reported more than 168,000 tech layoffs till now.

Meta, formerly known as Facebook, laid off 21,000 employees within a few months, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg named it the “year of efficiency” in response to the downsizing US tech sector. Google laid off 12,000 employees in January and

Amazon has conducted two rounds of layoffs, removing around 27,000 employees from its payroll.&nbsp;Microsoft also announced a global workforce reduction of nearly 5 per cent, which is equivalent to 10,000 jobs, in January.&nbsp;

(Withinputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

After the tsunami of mass layoffs, big tech giants are now hiring lower-paid tech workers from foreign countries. Many of the big Silicon Valley companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Zoom, Salesforce and Palantir have applied for thousands of H-1B worker visas this year, reported independent investigative journalist Lee Fang, citing a US Department of Labor data.

After the tsunami of mass layoffs, big tech giants are now hiring lower-paid tech workers from foreign countries. Many of the big Silicon Valley companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Zoom, Salesforce and Palantir have applied for thousands of H-1B worker visas this year, reported independent investigative journalist Lee Fang, citing a US Department of Labor data. Ironically, thousands of workers on H-1B visas, including several Indians, have been affected by the layoffs in the United States, leading many to share the news on social media seeking new job opportunities, the report noted. Many laid-off employees have either lost or will soon lose the right to stay in the US. Also Read | Google to delete inactive accounts, including content of Google Drive and YouTube- Should you worry? According to the report, Google filed applications for H-1B visas to hire lower-paid workers from foreign countries just a month after announcing its plan to cut 12,000 jobs worldwide in January. The visas were for roles including software engineers, analytical consultants, and user experience researchers, with some requests aimed at new Google employees to join in August only. Waymo, a self-driving cars company owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet also reportedly filed similar H-1B applications to hire engineers. H-1B visas are used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, which has always been a contentious issue in the immigration debate. Critics say that these visas are used to undercut US citizens and legal permanent residents. Watch | Big tech's innovative layoff strategy: Resign voluntarily, take home 1-hr pay | Newspoint × These visas are issued for three years and can be further extended for another three years. Fang cited a 2017 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found that “wages for US computer scientists would have been 2.6% to 5.1% higher” while “employment in computer science for US workers would have been 6.1% to 10.8% higher” in 2001 if there has been no immigration. Some even critique that the number of soaring applications in the technology industry raises “serious concerns” as immigrants manipulate the system to gain an unfair advantage. According to Fang, tech firms have hired lobbyists to pressure lawmakers and the Biden administration to expand the number of H-1B visas that are issued. Each year, up to 85,000 people are selected for H-1B visas. Also Read | Shell to use new AI-based technology in deep-sea exploration in partnership with SparkCognition The website Layoffs.fyi, which keeps running a tally of the total number of workers who have lost their jobs this year, reported more than 168,000 tech layoffs till now. Meta, formerly known as Facebook, laid off 21,000 employees within a few months, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg named it the “year of efficiency” in response to the downsizing US tech sector. Google laid off 12,000 employees in January and Amazon has conducted two rounds of layoffs, removing around 27,000 employees from its payroll. Microsoft also announced a global workforce reduction of nearly 5 per cent, which is equivalent to 10,000 jobs, in January. (Withinputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Big tech companies now hiring low-paid H1B workers after mass layoffs: report

Imagine an employer giving you full year's paid leave, so your shares can vest and then being able to avail a slew of jobs support opportunities to find you your next job too good too be true - that's what Google and Amazon are doing in Europe but there's a twist. Watch the video to know more.

Big tech's innovative layoff strategy: Resign voluntarily, take home 1-hr pay | Newspoint | WION

The Indian government has expressed its support to the news publishing companies and called on the big tech content aggregators to share revenues with them.&nbsp;Speaking at the inaugural session of a day-long conclave organised by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar and Information and Broadcasting Secretary Apurva Chandra both emphasised on the “future of journalism” and financial health of the news industry.

Raising the issue of the ‘strained financial health’ of the Indian news publishing industry, Chandra said, "For the growth of the news industry, it is important that digital news platforms of all these publishers, who are the creators of original content, get a fair share of revenues from the big tech platforms which act as aggregators of content created by others," he said.

Chandra took the examples of the initiatives taken by EU, Australia and Canada, who have passed legislation and strengthened their competition commissions to ensure a fair split of revenue between news content creators and aggregators.

Echoing similar sentiments, Chandrasekhar said, "We hope to address this issue of disproportionate control and imbalance of dynamics between content creation and its monetisation and the power that ad-tech companies and platforms hold today.”

Australia’s Member of Parliament Paul Fletcher, who was the minister of communications when Australia passed the landmark News Media Bargaining Code, shared his country’s experience as to how they resisted Google and Facebook when they shared the draft of the code with them.

“There was a bit of turbulence along the way. Google, at one point, threatened to withdraw Google Search services in Australia. In response to that, the PM (then Prime Minister Scott Morrison) and I met with the global experts of&nbsp;Microsoft, who said they will be interested in expanding Bing (Microsoft’s search engine) in Australia. We didn’t hear much more of the threat (from Google),” he said.

“In the face of that, we held firm and there was a strong political leadership from Josh Frydenberg (former Treasurer of Australia) and the legislation passed Parliament. I am pleased to say that both Google and Facebook have since negotiated commercial deals with news media businesses,” he added.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE: 

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Indian government has expressed its support to the news publishing companies and called on the big tech content aggregators to share revenues with them. Speaking at the inaugural session of a day-long conclave organised by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar and Information and Broadcasting Secretary Apurva Chandra both emphasised on the “future of journalism” and financial health of the news industry.

The Indian government has expressed its support to the news publishing companies and called on the big tech content aggregators to share revenues with them. Speaking at the inaugural session of a day-long conclave organised by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar and Information and Broadcasting Secretary Apurva Chandra both emphasised on the “future of journalism” and financial health of the news industry. Raising the issue of the ‘strained financial health’ of the Indian news publishing industry, Chandra said, "For the growth of the news industry, it is important that digital news platforms of all these publishers, who are the creators of original content, get a fair share of revenues from the big tech platforms which act as aggregators of content created by others," he said. Chandra took the examples of the initiatives taken by EU, Australia and Canada, who have passed legislation and strengthened their competition commissions to ensure a fair split of revenue between news content creators and aggregators. Echoing similar sentiments, Chandrasekhar said, "We hope to address this issue of disproportionate control and imbalance of dynamics between content creation and its monetisation and the power that ad-tech companies and platforms hold today.” Australia’s Member of Parliament Paul Fletcher, who was the minister of communications when Australia passed the landmark News Media Bargaining Code, shared his country’s experience as to how they resisted Google and Facebook when they shared the draft of the code with them. “There was a bit of turbulence along the way. Google, at one point, threatened to withdraw Google Search services in Australia. In response to that, the PM (then Prime Minister Scott Morrison) and I met with the global experts of Microsoft, who said they will be interested in expanding Bing (Microsoft’s search engine) in Australia. We didn’t hear much more of the threat (from Google),” he said. “In the face of that, we held firm and there was a strong political leadership from Josh Frydenberg (former Treasurer of Australia) and the legislation passed Parliament. I am pleased to say that both Google and Facebook have since negotiated commercial deals with news media businesses,” he added. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Big tech should pay news publishers for content: Indian govt’s strong pushback

In a move that experts have labelled as evasive, on Monday big-tech companies in New Zealand agreed to forego government regulation in favour of themselves reducing dangerous online content. According to Netsafe, a government-funded internet safety organisation, Twitter, Amazon.com Inc., TikTok, Meta Platforms Inc., and Alphabet-owned Google have all signed a code of conduct called Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms. The organisation's chief Brent Carey said that the signatory companies will follow the code as self-regulation. However, industry lobby group NZTech will be overseeing the compliance.&nbsp;"There are too many Kiwis being bullied, harassed, and abused online, which is why the industry has rallied together to protect users," said Carey.

Watch |&nbsp;Have a phobia? A new app can help fight it

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/have-a-phobia-a-new-app-can-help-fight-it-tech-it-out-500321/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

As per a Reuters report, the big-tech companies' adherence to obligations, such as decreasing harmful information online, disclosing how they do so, and allowing independent evaluation of results, would be under the supervision of industry lobbying group NZTech.

NZTech CEO Graeme Muller has expressed hope that "the governance framework will enable it to evolve alongside local conditions, while at the same time respecting the fundamental rights of freedom of expression."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/japan-cracks-down-on-cyberbullying-the-crime-can-now-get-you-a-year-in-jail-496033">Japan cracks down on cyberbullying, makes it a punishable offence, but experts aren't too happy. Here's why</a>

However, interest groups demand more information, such as a system for public complaints and punishment for any noncompliance by the corporations.

They further emphasise that an industry organisation, not the government, is in charge of managing the accord.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/roe-v-wade-google-location-history-of-women-remains-vulnerable-youtube-to-censor-false-videos-on-abortion-499712">Roe v. Wade: Google location history of women remains vulnerable; YouTube to censor false videos on abortion</a>

Mandy Henk, CEO of Tohatoha NZ, a non-profit organisation that advocates the social impact of technology, called the move "a weak attempt to preempt regulation – in New Zealand and overseas – by promoting an industry-led model."

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In a move that experts have labelled as evasive, on Monday big-tech companies in New Zealand agreed to forego government regulation in favour of themselves reducing dangerous online content.

In a move that experts have labelled as evasive, on Monday big-tech companies in New Zealand agreed to forego government regulation in favour of themselves reducing dangerous online content. According to Netsafe, a government-funded internet safety organisation, Twitter, Amazon.com Inc., TikTok, Meta Platforms Inc., and Alphabet-owned Google have all signed a code of conduct called Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms. The organisation's chief Brent Carey said that the signatory companies will follow the code as self-regulation. However, industry lobby group NZTech will be overseeing the compliance. "There are too many Kiwis being bullied, harassed, and abused online, which is why the industry has rallied together to protect users," said Carey. Watch | Have a phobia? A new app can help fight it As per a Reuters report, the big-tech companies' adherence to obligations, such as decreasing harmful information online, disclosing how they do so, and allowing independent evaluation of results, would be under the supervision of industry lobbying group NZTech. NZTech CEO Graeme Muller has expressed hope that "the governance framework will enable it to evolve alongside local conditions, while at the same time respecting the fundamental rights of freedom of expression." Also read | Japan cracks down on cyberbullying, makes it a punishable offence, but experts aren't too happy. Here's why However, interest groups demand more information, such as a system for public complaints and punishment for any noncompliance by the corporations. They further emphasise that an industry organisation, not the government, is in charge of managing the accord. Also read | Roe v. Wade: Google location history of women remains vulnerable; YouTube to censor false videos on abortion Mandy Henk, CEO of Tohatoha NZ, a non-profit organisation that advocates the social impact of technology, called the move "a weak attempt to preempt regulation – in New Zealand and overseas – by promoting an industry-led model." (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION LIVE HERE: You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Big-tech companies agree to self-regulate harmful content in New Zealand, experts call it a 'weak attempt'

The Government of India is expected to soon take a call and make the big tech Silicon Valley companies such as Google (owns YouTube), Meta (owns Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), Twitter and Amazon pay the local Indian publishers as well as digital publishers', a share of the revenue for the original content churned by them.

Up until now, the big tech companies, using the lack of legislation, have managed to avoid payments to the news platforms. With opaque ad-sharing revenue models, the major chunk of advertising revenue stays with the big tech companies. Often, the digital publishers are left lamenting about not receiving their fair revenue share.&nbsp;

Minister of State for IT and electronics Rajeev Chandrasekhar stated that the government was seriously considering formulating new rules to correct the anomaly of the situation.&nbsp;

&nbsp;“The market power on digital advertising that is currently being exercised by the Big Tech majors, which places Indian media companies at a position of disadvantage, is an issue that is seriously being examined in the context of new legalisations and rules,” the minister was quoted as saying by TOI.&nbsp;

Tech platforms are opaque in their practices

Facebook started as a platform that connected people. However, it has now metamorphosed into a space for sharing news and other media content. Similarly, Google is not just a search engine anymore, albeit, it has branched out to become a major platform for sharing news.&nbsp;

According to Digital News Publishers’ Association (DNPA), more than 50 per cent of the traffic on news websites is routed through Google. And Google, akin to its ad-revenue policies, is opaque about the algorithms that push a particular news channel website up on the list.&nbsp;

While the Indian government mulls bringing the legislation, countries around the globe have already started to tighten the bolts. Reportedly, Australia and France have already brought and enacted legislation that binds Google and other tech platforms to divide their share of the pie with local news creators. Canada and United Kingdom are also attempting to bring similar legislation.&nbsp;

WATCH:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydqvy7RZo0E">Australia wants Google to pay for news; Google threatens to turn off search</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/gravitas-australia-wants-google-to-pay-for-news-google-threatens-to-turn-off-search-358676/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

However, when the South American country of Brazil brought the 'Brazilian Law of Freedom, Responsibility and Transparency on the Internet', the tech giants such as Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter banded together and shot off an open letter where they made it clear that they were against payment for news content to publishers.&nbsp;

Competition Commission of India (CCI) is already onto Google for its discriminatory policies. The government mooting a law is expected to further pile on the pressure.&nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

The Government of India is expected to soon take a call and make the big tech Silicon Valley companies such as Google (owns YouTube), Meta (owns Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), Twitter and Amazon pay the local Indian publishers as well as digital publishers', a share of the revenue for the original content churned by them.

The Government of India is expected to soon take a call and make the big tech Silicon Valley companies such as Google (owns YouTube), Meta (owns Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), Twitter and Amazon pay the local Indian publishers as well as digital publishers', a share of the revenue for the original content churned by them. Up until now, the big tech companies, using the lack of legislation, have managed to avoid payments to the news platforms. With opaque ad-sharing revenue models, the major chunk of advertising revenue stays with the big tech companies. Often, the digital publishers are left lamenting about not receiving their fair revenue share. Minister of State for IT and electronics Rajeev Chandrasekhar stated that the government was seriously considering formulating new rules to correct the anomaly of the situation. “The market power on digital advertising that is currently being exercised by the Big Tech majors, which places Indian media companies at a position of disadvantage, is an issue that is seriously being examined in the context of new legalisations and rules,” the minister was quoted as saying by TOI. Tech platforms are opaque in their practices Facebook started as a platform that connected people. However, it has now metamorphosed into a space for sharing news and other media content. Similarly, Google is not just a search engine anymore, albeit, it has branched out to become a major platform for sharing news. According to Digital News Publishers’ Association (DNPA), more than 50 per cent of the traffic on news websites is routed through Google. And Google, akin to its ad-revenue policies, is opaque about the algorithms that push a particular news channel website up on the list. While the Indian government mulls bringing the legislation, countries around the globe have already started to tighten the bolts. Reportedly, Australia and France have already brought and enacted legislation that binds Google and other tech platforms to divide their share of the pie with local news creators. Canada and United Kingdom are also attempting to bring similar legislation. WATCH: Australia wants Google to pay for news; Google threatens to turn off search × However, when the South American country of Brazil brought the 'Brazilian Law of Freedom, Responsibility and Transparency on the Internet', the tech giants such as Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter banded together and shot off an open letter where they made it clear that they were against payment for news content to publishers. Competition Commission of India (CCI) is already onto Google for its discriminatory policies. The government mooting a law is expected to further pile on the pressure. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Government of India to make Silicon Valley tech giants pay for content to news publishers

A counterterrorism organisation formed by big tech companies in the US including Facebook and Microsoft is compiling extremist content exchanged among firms in a database, with hopes to quell hate speech.

The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) told Reuters that it aims to limit content from white supremacists and far-right militias.

What does&nbsp;GIFCT intend to do?

Until now, the GIFCT was focused on visuals, largely videos and images from terrorism groups on a United Nations list. It had consisted of content from Islamist extremist organisations like Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the coming months, the GIFCT will insert attacker manifestos and other content flagged by UN's "Tech Against Terrorism" initiative. Attacker manifestos are generally shared by terror sympathisers after violence, especially perpetrated by white supremacists. 
 
In addition, the group will make use of lists from intelligence-sharing group "Five Eyes". More content from other groups including Proud Boys, The Three Percenters and will be added to the database.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/what-is-facebooks-1-billion-gamble-to-regain-lost-users-400121" hreflang="en">What is Facebook's $1 billion gamble to regain lost users?</a>

The grouping of firms uses "hashes" which represent a number embodying content which has been removed from their services. Based on this, services compare among themselves whether the same content is being carried on their platforms, which may then be reviewed or removed.

What will this achieve?

The ongoing project will help contain extremist content on major platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube. Even then, violent images and hate speech may be pushed out in different arenas of the internet.

In an interview with Reuters, GIFCT's Executive Director Nicholas Rasmussen claimed that he wants to fight an array of threats. "Anyone looking at the terrorism or extremism landscape has to appreciate that there are other parts...that are demanding attention right now," Rasmussen told Reuters.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/this-is-how-social-media-giants-are-feeding-dangerous-content-to-children-399247" hreflang="en">This is how social media giants are feeding dangerous content to children</a>

Tech companies have faced flak for being ineffective in the face of hate content on their platforms and the role played by these platforms in causing potential real-life damage. But at the same time, the companies are confronted with censorship concerns.

(With inputs from agencies)

A counterterrorism organisation formed by big tech companies in the US including Facebook and Microsoft is compiling extremist content exchanged among firms in a database, with hopes to quell hate speech.

A counterterrorism organisation formed by big tech companies in the US including Facebook and Microsoft is compiling extremist content exchanged among firms in a database, with hopes to quell hate speech. The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) told Reuters that it aims to limit content from white supremacists and far-right militias. What does GIFCT intend to do? Until now, the GIFCT was focused on visuals, largely videos and images from terrorism groups on a United Nations list. It had consisted of content from Islamist extremist organisations like Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban. Over the coming months, the GIFCT will insert attacker manifestos and other content flagged by UN's "Tech Against Terrorism" initiative. Attacker manifestos are generally shared by terror sympathisers after violence, especially perpetrated by white supremacists. In addition, the group will make use of lists from intelligence-sharing group "Five Eyes". More content from other groups including Proud Boys, The Three Percenters and will be added to the database. Also read: What is Facebook's $1 billion gamble to regain lost users? The grouping of firms uses "hashes" which represent a number embodying content which has been removed from their services. Based on this, services compare among themselves whether the same content is being carried on their platforms, which may then be reviewed or removed. What will this achieve? The ongoing project will help contain extremist content on major platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube. Even then, violent images and hate speech may be pushed out in different arenas of the internet. In an interview with Reuters, GIFCT's Executive Director Nicholas Rasmussen claimed that he wants to fight an array of threats. "Anyone looking at the terrorism or extremism landscape has to appreciate that there are other parts...that are demanding attention right now," Rasmussen told Reuters. Also read: This is how social media giants are feeding dangerous content to children Tech companies have faced flak for being ineffective in the face of hate content on their platforms and the role played by these platforms in causing potential real-life damage. But at the same time, the companies are confronted with censorship concerns. (With inputs from agencies)

Anti-terror organisation set up by tech firms to compile database of right-wing militias

Whatever else might be said about the curious lawsuits filed last week by former President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>, in which he accused three Big Tech companies of violating his First Amendment rights by denying him access to their platforms, it is fitting that he sued in Florida.

The state has long been on the cutting edge, and on the losing end, of efforts to force private companies to publish political messages to which they object.

Almost 50 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a "right to reply"&nbsp;to newspaper articles critical of them. And late last month, a federal judge in Florida blocked a new state law that would have imposed large fines on some tech companies (but not those that own theme parks in the state, such as Disney) that "willfully deplatform a candidate for office."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/three-real-nice-guys-donald-trump-to-sue-facebook-google-and-twitter-ceo-396572" hreflang="en">'Three real nice guys': Donald Trump to sue Facebook, Google and Twitter CEO</a>

Together, the two decisions, one from the Nixon era and the other issued June 30, demonstrate that the lawsuits Trump filed in Miami on Wednesday against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube face steep odds. The First Amendment applies to government censorship and not private activities, courts have said, and it protects publishers’ editorial judgments, including ones that decline to give politicians a forum.

The case that gave rise to the 1974 Supreme Court decision was brought by Pat Tornillo, who was displeased by colorful editorials in the Miami Herald opposing his candidacy for the Florida House of Representatives. The newspaper said Tornillo, a labor union official, had engaged in "shakedown statesmanship."

Tornillo invoked a Florida law that required newspapers to give candidates they criticized free space for a reply "in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type." The newspaper refused, lost in the state’s highest court and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/since-leaving-office-in-january-trump-charged-50000-from-secret-service-agents-protecting-him-396907" hreflang="en">Since leaving office in January, Trump charged $50,000 from secret service agents protecting him</a>

Tornillo and his supporters said, in Chief Justice Warren Burger’s summary, that “a communications revolution” and "the specter of a 'wired' nation" justified the law, as did "the vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires."

All of that may be so, Burger wrote for a unanimous court. But the First Amendment, he wrote, does not permit the government to usurp the role of editors in deciding what ought to be published.

"A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal," he wrote, "but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

Justice Byron White, who was often hostile to the news media, wrote in a concurring opinion that an unregulated and unruly press is better than the alternative of government control.

"Of course, the press is not always accurate, or even responsible, and may not present full and fair debate on important public issues," he wrote. "But the balance struck by the First Amendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed."

Less than two weeks ago, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee blocked another Florida law, this one enacted in May and animated by some of the same ideas rejected by the Supreme Court in 1974. The law would impose fines on some social media platforms for exercising editorial judgments in declining to amplify the views of politicians who ran afoul of their standards.

In a statement issued when he signed the bill, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said the point of the law was to promote conservative viewpoints. "If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable," he said.

Hinkle cited the Tornillo decision but wrote that there are significant differences between newspapers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

"Newspapers, unlike social media providers," he wrote, "create or select all their content, including op-eds and letters to the editor," he wrote. By contrast, he wrote, "something well north of 99 per cent&nbsp;of the content that makes it onto a social media site never gets reviewed further."

But the new law, Hinkle wrote, was aimed at "ideologically sensitive cases,"&nbsp;ones in which the platforms used discretion much as newspapers do.

"Those are the very cases on which the platforms are most likely to exercise editorial judgment," he wrote. "Indeed, the targets of the statutes at issue are the editorial judgments themselves."

Perhaps the oddest part of the law was its exclusion of social media providers under common ownership with large theme parks. That discrimination, an apparent favor to powerful local businesses, was reason enough to subject the law to the most demanding form of constitutional scrutiny, Hinkle wrote.

DeSantis has said the state will appeal, and there is at least one member of the Supreme Court who seems open to considering whether new technologies require new rules. In April, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion when the court turned down a case on whether Trump had violated the First Amendment by blocking people from his Twitter account, saying it was moot.

Thomas used the occasion to muse on a larger question, one pertinent to both the Florida law and Trump’s lawsuits.

"Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors,” he wrote. “Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms."

Whatever else might be said about the curious lawsuits filed last week by former President Donald Trump, in which he accused three Big Tech companies of violating his First Amendment rights by denying him access to their platforms, it is fitting that he sued in Florida.

Whatever else might be said about the curious lawsuits filed last week by former President Donald Trump, in which he accused three Big Tech companies of violating his First Amendment rights by denying him access to their platforms, it is fitting that he sued in Florida. The state has long been on the cutting edge, and on the losing end, of efforts to force private companies to publish political messages to which they object. Almost 50 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a "right to reply" to newspaper articles critical of them. And late last month, a federal judge in Florida blocked a new state law that would have imposed large fines on some tech companies (but not those that own theme parks in the state, such as Disney) that "willfully deplatform a candidate for office." Also read | 'Three real nice guys': Donald Trump to sue Facebook, Google and Twitter CEO Together, the two decisions, one from the Nixon era and the other issued June 30, demonstrate that the lawsuits Trump filed in Miami on Wednesday against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube face steep odds. The First Amendment applies to government censorship and not private activities, courts have said, and it protects publishers’ editorial judgments, including ones that decline to give politicians a forum. The case that gave rise to the 1974 Supreme Court decision was brought by Pat Tornillo, who was displeased by colorful editorials in the Miami Herald opposing his candidacy for the Florida House of Representatives. The newspaper said Tornillo, a labor union official, had engaged in "shakedown statesmanship." Tornillo invoked a Florida law that required newspapers to give candidates they criticized free space for a reply "in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type." The newspaper refused, lost in the state’s highest court and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Also read | Since leaving office in January, Trump charged $50,000 from secret service agents protecting him Tornillo and his supporters said, in Chief Justice Warren Burger’s summary, that “a communications revolution” and "the specter of a 'wired' nation" justified the law, as did "the vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires." All of that may be so, Burger wrote for a unanimous court. But the First Amendment, he wrote, does not permit the government to usurp the role of editors in deciding what ought to be published. "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal," he wrote, "but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated." Justice Byron White, who was often hostile to the news media, wrote in a concurring opinion that an unregulated and unruly press is better than the alternative of government control. "Of course, the press is not always accurate, or even responsible, and may not present full and fair debate on important public issues," he wrote. "But the balance struck by the First Amendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed." Less than two weeks ago, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee blocked another Florida law, this one enacted in May and animated by some of the same ideas rejected by the Supreme Court in 1974. The law would impose fines on some social media platforms for exercising editorial judgments in declining to amplify the views of politicians who ran afoul of their standards. In a statement issued when he signed the bill, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said the point of the law was to promote conservative viewpoints. "If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable," he said. Hinkle cited the Tornillo decision but wrote that there are significant differences between newspapers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. "Newspapers, unlike social media providers," he wrote, "create or select all their content, including op-eds and letters to the editor," he wrote. By contrast, he wrote, "something well north of 99 per cent of the content that makes it onto a social media site never gets reviewed further." But the new law, Hinkle wrote, was aimed at "ideologically sensitive cases," ones in which the platforms used discretion much as newspapers do. "Those are the very cases on which the platforms are most likely to exercise editorial judgment," he wrote. "Indeed, the targets of the statutes at issue are the editorial judgments themselves." Perhaps the oddest part of the law was its exclusion of social media providers under common ownership with large theme parks. That discrimination, an apparent favor to powerful local businesses, was reason enough to subject the law to the most demanding form of constitutional scrutiny, Hinkle wrote. DeSantis has said the state will appeal, and there is at least one member of the Supreme Court who seems open to considering whether new technologies require new rules. In April, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion when the court turned down a case on whether Trump had violated the First Amendment by blocking people from his Twitter account, saying it was moot. Thomas used the occasion to muse on a larger question, one pertinent to both the Florida law and Trump’s lawsuits. "Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors,” he wrote. “Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms."

Trump suits against tech giants face steep first amendment hurdles

The&nbsp;House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved five antitrust bills, three of them aimed at Big Tech, and will take up the last and most aggressive proposed legislation on Thursday, a bill that could require platforms to sell off lines of business.

In a marathon session that adjourned in the early morning hours, House Judiciary Committee members approved five of six bills that take aim at the business practices of Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/apple-google-come-under-fire-at-senate-antitrust-hearing-379173/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

One of the measures would ban online platforms from favoring their own products and services -- responding to complaints that dominant tech firms discriminate against, and crush rivals.

In a session marked by numerous attempts to amend or water down the legislation, the committee also approved an "interoperability" requirement for platforms that would make it easier for users to switch services while keeping their data, and a separate bill banning takeovers of rivals by large tech firms.

When the committee resumes work, it will take up what some call the "break 'em up" bill. This would require a platform, again like Amazon, to sell any business that competes with other businesses using its platform.

There has been vociferous opposition to that bill and others, including from the US&nbsp;Chamber of Commerce, Amazon, Apple Inc, Facebook Inc, and Alphabet Inc's Google.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/in-focus-big-tech-firms-facing-antitrust-investigations-across-world-393413" hreflang="en">In focus: Big Tech firms facing antitrust investigations across world</a>

Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said the package of bills is aimed at "a small set of online platforms (which) have become gatekeepers for much of the digital marketplace" and argued that "in many cases, businesses and consumers no longer have meaningful alternatives online."

The bills head to the full House of Representatives where a contentious debate is expected, amid fierce opposition from the tech sector and allies. Any bills would need passage of both the House and Senate and the president's signature.

The legislation would restrict how online platforms operate, and potentially set the stage for a breakup by limiting their ability to offer services on the marketplaces they run.

Republican Representative Darrell Issa noted that the committee was considering "radical" reforms worthy of weeks of hearings rather than one marathon session.

"I believe many of these bills are going to die in the Senate if they ever get out of the House," Issa said.

Clash points included whether it is right to target laws at four big tech companies and whether government agencies will hobble them instead of letting them adapt to the competition.

Republican Representative Ken Buck, a supporter of the overhaul, said the legislation "represents a scalpel, not a chainsaw, to deal with the most important aspects of antitrust reform," in dealing with "these monopolists (who) routinely use their gatekeeper power to crush competitors, harm innovation and destroy the free market."

But Republican Jim Jordan criticized the effort, renewing his argument that Big Tech firms suppress conservative voices.

"These bills don't fix that problem -- &nbsp;they make it worse," Jordan said. "They don't break up Big Tech. They don't stop censorship."

Steve Chabot, another Republican, called the initiative "an effort for big government to take over Big Tech."

Tech firms and others warned of negative consequences for popular services people rely on, potentially forcing Apple to remove its messaging apps from the iPhone or Google to stop displaying results from YouTube or Maps.

Apple released a report arguing that one likely impact -- opening up the iPhone to apps from outside platforms -- could create security and privacy risks for users.

Forcing Apple to allow "sideloading" of apps would mean "malicious actors would take advantage of the opportunity by devoting more resources to develop sophisticated attacks targeting iOS users," the report said.

Amazon vice president Brian Huseman likewise warned of "significant negative effects," both for sellers and consumers using the e-commerce platform, and reduced-price competition.

"It will be much harder for these third-party sellers to create awareness for their business," Huseman said.&nbsp;

"Removing the selection of these sellers from Amazon's store would also create less price competition for products, and likely end up increasing prices for consumers. The committee is moving unnecessarily fast in pushing these bills forward."

(With inputs from agencies)

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved five antitrust bills, three of them aimed at Big Tech, and will take up the last and most aggressive proposed legislation on Thursday, a bill that could require platforms to sell off lines of business.

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved five antitrust bills, three of them aimed at Big Tech, and will take up the last and most aggressive proposed legislation on Thursday, a bill that could require platforms to sell off lines of business. In a marathon session that adjourned in the early morning hours, House Judiciary Committee members approved five of six bills that take aim at the business practices of Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook. One of the measures would ban online platforms from favoring their own products and services -- responding to complaints that dominant tech firms discriminate against, and crush rivals. In a session marked by numerous attempts to amend or water down the legislation, the committee also approved an "interoperability" requirement for platforms that would make it easier for users to switch services while keeping their data, and a separate bill banning takeovers of rivals by large tech firms. When the committee resumes work, it will take up what some call the "break 'em up" bill. This would require a platform, again like Amazon, to sell any business that competes with other businesses using its platform. There has been vociferous opposition to that bill and others, including from the US Chamber of Commerce, Amazon, Apple Inc, Facebook Inc, and Alphabet Inc's Google. Also read| In focus: Big Tech firms facing antitrust investigations across world Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said the package of bills is aimed at "a small set of online platforms (which) have become gatekeepers for much of the digital marketplace" and argued that "in many cases, businesses and consumers no longer have meaningful alternatives online." The bills head to the full House of Representatives where a contentious debate is expected, amid fierce opposition from the tech sector and allies. Any bills would need passage of both the House and Senate and the president's signature. The legislation would restrict how online platforms operate, and potentially set the stage for a breakup by limiting their ability to offer services on the marketplaces they run. Republican Representative Darrell Issa noted that the committee was considering "radical" reforms worthy of weeks of hearings rather than one marathon session. "I believe many of these bills are going to die in the Senate if they ever get out of the House," Issa said. Clash points included whether it is right to target laws at four big tech companies and whether government agencies will hobble them instead of letting them adapt to the competition. Republican Representative Ken Buck, a supporter of the overhaul, said the legislation "represents a scalpel, not a chainsaw, to deal with the most important aspects of antitrust reform," in dealing with "these monopolists (who) routinely use their gatekeeper power to crush competitors, harm innovation and destroy the free market." But Republican Jim Jordan criticized the effort, renewing his argument that Big Tech firms suppress conservative voices. "These bills don't fix that problem -- they make it worse," Jordan said. "They don't break up Big Tech. They don't stop censorship." Steve Chabot, another Republican, called the initiative "an effort for big government to take over Big Tech." Tech firms and others warned of negative consequences for popular services people rely on, potentially forcing Apple to remove its messaging apps from the iPhone or Google to stop displaying results from YouTube or Maps. Apple released a report arguing that one likely impact -- opening up the iPhone to apps from outside platforms -- could create security and privacy risks for users. Forcing Apple to allow "sideloading" of apps would mean "malicious actors would take advantage of the opportunity by devoting more resources to develop sophisticated attacks targeting iOS users," the report said. Amazon vice president Brian Huseman likewise warned of "significant negative effects," both for sellers and consumers using the e-commerce platform, and reduced-price competition. "It will be much harder for these third-party sellers to create awareness for their business," Huseman said. "Removing the selection of these sellers from Amazon's store would also create less price competition for products, and likely end up increasing prices for consumers. The committee is moving unnecessarily fast in pushing these bills forward." (With inputs from agencies)

'Break them up': US House panel approves five antitrust bills aimed at Big Tech

Tech companies both large and small&nbsp;have found themselves dependent on the arbitrary whim of Big Tech, one algorithm tweak away from ruin.

The&nbsp;decisions made by tech giants are largely unaccountable, opaque, and result in sweeping consequences, the dominant platforms effectively serve as private regulators.

To break up their monopoly, regulatory battles have broken out across the world to curb the rising influence and diminishing responsibility of these tech giants.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon&nbsp;and Apple are a part of the&nbsp;'hit list'&nbsp;that will be facing new and tougher rules aimed at curbing their dominant market position and its misuse.

They are facing the biggest threat from&nbsp;the European Union and the United States Congress, which are introducing&nbsp;rules that will force the companies to share data with rivals and be more transparent on how they gather information.

Democrats from a US&nbsp;House of Representatives subcommittee issued a report&nbsp;detailing tactics they said four of the biggest technology companies used to gain dominant positioning in online search, advertising, social networking shopping, and other businesses.

AMAZON 
Amazon.com Inc sells its own products as well as goods from independent merchants on a single platform. The Congressional report alleged that Amazon has "monopoly power" over many of these merchants, which "do not have a viable alternative to Amazon for reaching online consumers."

US&nbsp;Senator Amy Klobuchar said that the company&nbsp;needs to offer more details about how its&nbsp;smart-home devices and virtual assistants will support competition and user privacy.

The&nbsp;House Judiciary Committee is all set&nbsp;take up a package of six antitrust bills on Wednesday.

Before the beginning of the session,&nbsp;Amazon's Brian Huseman, vice president of public policy, said&nbsp;the company believed that the bills "would have significant negative effects on the hundreds of thousands of American small- and medium-sized businesses that sell in our store, and tens of millions of consumers who buy products from&nbsp;Amazon."

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) launched an investigation in January last year after a complaint accused Flipkart and&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;of promoting select sellers on their e-commerce platforms and using deep discounts to stifle competition.

Amazon was accused of favoring big sellers on its India platform – and used them to maneuver around rules meant to protect the country's small retailers from getting crushed by e-commerce giants.

India proposed banning flash sales on e-commerce websites and said their affiliate entities should not be listed as sellers on their platforms, in a proposed tightening of rules that could hit Amazon and Flipkart, owned by Walmart.

APPLE 
Apple has a monopoly on distributing software onto the iPhone. Apple used that monopoly power to charge above-market prices to developers in the form of a 30 per cent&nbsp;commission on App Store sales, to exclude rival apps and services, and to misappropriate data from developers and use it to create competing services and features.

A former App Store employee told lawmakers that the App Store costs Apple merely an estimated $100 million per year to run, while it generates billions of dollars in revenue.

Meanwhile, Apple boss Tim Cook took aim on Wednesday at proposed European rules aimed at curbing the power of US tech giants, saying they could pose security and privacy risks to iPhones.

Cook, in his first public comments about the Digital Markets Act (DMA) proposed by EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager, said parts of it were good but others were not.

He said he feared the draft rules would lead to more installing of apps that do not come via Apple's App Store, or "side-loading".

"You take an example here where I don't think it's in the best interest (of the user): the current DMA language that is being discussed would force side-loading on the iPhone," the Apple CEO, speaking remotely, said at VivaTech, France´s biggest tech conference.

"And so this would be an ultimate way of getting apps onto the iPhone," he said. "It would destroy the security of the iPhone, and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store or the privacy intrusion labels and app-tracking transparency," he added.

Earlier this month, EU lawmaker Andreas Schwab, who is leading the European Parliament scrutiny of the draft rules, said he wanted to beef up the legislation and narrow its scope to just big companies like Google Amazon, Apple, and Facebook.

Apple would take part in the debate and try to find a way forward, Cook said.

FACEBOOK 
Facebook holds monopoly power in the “social networking” market, which it distinguished from the market for more content-centric social media products like YouTube and TikTok.

Facebook secured its dominance in that highly concentrated market by identifying nascent rivals and copying, acquiring or killing them off before they could mature into competitive threats, the US Congressional report said.

The company’s two biggest acquisitions, of Instagram and WhatsApp, fit that pattern. The US report&nbsp;also accused Facebook of selectively enforcing its platform policies to defuse a threat from video-sharing app Vine, which Twitter shut down in 2016.

Regulatory experts stopped short of recommending a breakup of Facebook, but propose boosting the budgets of antitrust enforcers and allowing them more leeway to stop companies from purchasing would-be rivals.

That could strengthen regulators’ hands in current investigations into Facebook’s alleged anti-competitive practices and make future transactions trickier.

GOOGLE 
Google has used restrictive customer and partner contracts and other means to ensure its own services are favored over those of competitors in search, phone and tablet software, advertising technology, and mapping technology.

For instance, the House Judiciary Committee&nbsp;found in internal Google documents that top executives such as now-Chief Executive Sundar Pichai approved stiff-arming partners to make sure Google search, in the company’s own words, was “front and centre” on mobile devices.

When one hardware manufacturer in 2014 complained about its devices being overloaded with required Google apps, the search giant blamed it for not making gadgets with more memory.

The US Congress is planning to pass nondiscrimination and bargaining laws requiring big service providers such as Google to provide fair access to their systems.

Such a rule could give a leg-up to device makers, ad tech companies, and app developers that want to shift from Google tools.

Also in the US, reports emerged that a group of state attorneys general may file a lawsuit against Alphabet Inc's&nbsp;Google&nbsp;as early as next week, accusing the search and advertising giant of violating antitrust law in running Google Play, its mobile app store.

The European Commission, meanwhile, is&nbsp;investigating whether&nbsp;Google&nbsp;distorts competition by restricting third party access to user data for advertising purposes on websites and apps, while reserving such data for its own use.

"We are concerned that&nbsp;Google&nbsp;has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack," European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement.

YOUTUBE

About 1.6 million views on YouTube out of every 1 billion are of a video that violates its content policies, about even a year ago, the streaming service owned by Alphabet Inc’s Google said in a new disclosure.

The “violative view rate” (VVR) has dropped over 70 per cent&nbsp;since it was first tracked in the fourth quarter of 2017, YouTube said, and demonstrates its progress in blocking hate speech and other videos it considers dangerous before they go viral.

Critics have said inadequate policing by YouTube and other social media companies enables false and hateful rhetoric to spread, fomenting deadly violence such as the US&nbsp;Capitol attack in January.

YouTube’s VVR was steady over the last six quarters measured, according to the new data, which run through 2020.

Jennifer O’Connor, a product director at YouTube, told reporters that she hoped releasing the estimate each quarter “continues to hold us accountable.”

She said the rate, like other enforcement data YouTube releases, could fluctuate as its technology, rules and users evolve. For instance, YouTube removed nearly 171,000 channels for hate speech in the fourth quarter, three times more than the preceding period. It attributed the jump to improved detection technology.

The VVR comprises all policy violations and is derived from a sampling of videos. It does not include comments on videos.

Tech companies both large and small have found themselves dependent on the arbitrary whim of Big Tech, one algorithm tweak away from ruin. The decisions made by tech giants are largely unaccountable, opaque, and result in sweeping consequences, the dominant platforms effectively serve as private regulators.

Tech companies both large and small have found themselves dependent on the arbitrary whim of Big Tech, one algorithm tweak away from ruin. The decisions made by tech giants are largely unaccountable, opaque, and result in sweeping consequences, the dominant platforms effectively serve as private regulators. To break up their monopoly, regulatory battles have broken out across the world to curb the rising influence and diminishing responsibility of these tech giants. Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon and Apple are a part of the 'hit list' that will be facing new and tougher rules aimed at curbing their dominant market position and its misuse. They are facing the biggest threat from the European Union and the United States Congress, which are introducing rules that will force the companies to share data with rivals and be more transparent on how they gather information. Democrats from a US House of Representatives subcommittee issued a report detailing tactics they said four of the biggest technology companies used to gain dominant positioning in online search, advertising, social networking shopping, and other businesses. AMAZON Amazon.com Inc sells its own products as well as goods from independent merchants on a single platform. The Congressional report alleged that Amazon has "monopoly power" over many of these merchants, which "do not have a viable alternative to Amazon for reaching online consumers." US Senator Amy Klobuchar said that the company needs to offer more details about how its smart-home devices and virtual assistants will support competition and user privacy. The House Judiciary Committee is all set take up a package of six antitrust bills on Wednesday. Before the beginning of the session, Amazon's Brian Huseman, vice president of public policy, said the company believed that the bills "would have significant negative effects on the hundreds of thousands of American small- and medium-sized businesses that sell in our store, and tens of millions of consumers who buy products from Amazon." The Competition Commission of India (CCI) launched an investigation in January last year after a complaint accused Flipkart and Amazon of promoting select sellers on their e-commerce platforms and using deep discounts to stifle competition. Amazon was accused of favoring big sellers on its India platform – and used them to maneuver around rules meant to protect the country's small retailers from getting crushed by e-commerce giants. India proposed banning flash sales on e-commerce websites and said their affiliate entities should not be listed as sellers on their platforms, in a proposed tightening of rules that could hit Amazon and Flipkart, owned by Walmart. APPLE Apple has a monopoly on distributing software onto the iPhone. Apple used that monopoly power to charge above-market prices to developers in the form of a 30 per cent commission on App Store sales, to exclude rival apps and services, and to misappropriate data from developers and use it to create competing services and features. A former App Store employee told lawmakers that the App Store costs Apple merely an estimated $100 million per year to run, while it generates billions of dollars in revenue. Meanwhile, Apple boss Tim Cook took aim on Wednesday at proposed European rules aimed at curbing the power of US tech giants, saying they could pose security and privacy risks to iPhones. Cook, in his first public comments about the Digital Markets Act (DMA) proposed by EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager, said parts of it were good but others were not. He said he feared the draft rules would lead to more installing of apps that do not come via Apple's App Store, or "side-loading". "You take an example here where I don't think it's in the best interest (of the user): the current DMA language that is being discussed would force side-loading on the iPhone," the Apple CEO, speaking remotely, said at VivaTech, France´s biggest tech conference. "And so this would be an ultimate way of getting apps onto the iPhone," he said. "It would destroy the security of the iPhone, and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store or the privacy intrusion labels and app-tracking transparency," he added. Earlier this month, EU lawmaker Andreas Schwab, who is leading the European Parliament scrutiny of the draft rules, said he wanted to beef up the legislation and narrow its scope to just big companies like Google Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Apple would take part in the debate and try to find a way forward, Cook said. FACEBOOK Facebook holds monopoly power in the “social networking” market, which it distinguished from the market for more content-centric social media products like YouTube and TikTok. Facebook secured its dominance in that highly concentrated market by identifying nascent rivals and copying, acquiring or killing them off before they could mature into competitive threats, the US Congressional report said. The company’s two biggest acquisitions, of Instagram and WhatsApp, fit that pattern. The US report also accused Facebook of selectively enforcing its platform policies to defuse a threat from video-sharing app Vine, which Twitter shut down in 2016. Regulatory experts stopped short of recommending a breakup of Facebook, but propose boosting the budgets of antitrust enforcers and allowing them more leeway to stop companies from purchasing would-be rivals. That could strengthen regulators’ hands in current investigations into Facebook’s alleged anti-competitive practices and make future transactions trickier. GOOGLE Google has used restrictive customer and partner contracts and other means to ensure its own services are favored over those of competitors in search, phone and tablet software, advertising technology, and mapping technology. For instance, the House Judiciary Committee found in internal Google documents that top executives such as now-Chief Executive Sundar Pichai approved stiff-arming partners to make sure Google search, in the company’s own words, was “front and centre” on mobile devices. When one hardware manufacturer in 2014 complained about its devices being overloaded with required Google apps, the search giant blamed it for not making gadgets with more memory. The US Congress is planning to pass nondiscrimination and bargaining laws requiring big service providers such as Google to provide fair access to their systems. Such a rule could give a leg-up to device makers, ad tech companies, and app developers that want to shift from Google tools. Also in the US, reports emerged that a group of state attorneys general may file a lawsuit against Alphabet Inc's Google as early as next week, accusing the search and advertising giant of violating antitrust law in running Google Play, its mobile app store. The European Commission, meanwhile, is investigating whether Google distorts competition by restricting third party access to user data for advertising purposes on websites and apps, while reserving such data for its own use. "We are concerned that Google has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack," European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement. YOUTUBE About 1.6 million views on YouTube out of every 1 billion are of a video that violates its content policies, about even a year ago, the streaming service owned by Alphabet Inc’s Google said in a new disclosure. The “violative view rate” (VVR) has dropped over 70 per cent since it was first tracked in the fourth quarter of 2017, YouTube said, and demonstrates its progress in blocking hate speech and other videos it considers dangerous before they go viral. Critics have said inadequate policing by YouTube and other social media companies enables false and hateful rhetoric to spread, fomenting deadly violence such as the US Capitol attack in January. YouTube’s VVR was steady over the last six quarters measured, according to the new data, which run through 2020. Jennifer O’Connor, a product director at YouTube, told reporters that she hoped releasing the estimate each quarter “continues to hold us accountable.” She said the rate, like other enforcement data YouTube releases, could fluctuate as its technology, rules and users evolve. For instance, YouTube removed nearly 171,000 channels for hate speech in the fourth quarter, three times more than the preceding period. It attributed the jump to improved detection technology. The VVR comprises all policy violations and is derived from a sampling of videos. It does not include comments on videos.

In focus: Big Tech firms facing antitrust investigations across world

A senator from the United States wants to ban all future purchases from Big Tech. Josh Hawley, a Republican on Monday introduced a bill banning all mergers and acquisitions by any big company which is valued over $100 billion.

The over $100 billion category includes five big US tech companies. Hawley has accused big social media companies of clipping conservative voices along with criticism of pharmaceuticals, which he felt held too much market power.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-house-antitrust-chairman-plans-multiple-bills-to-go-after-big-tech-372191/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The new bill would ban companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Facebook from making future deals and would also stop them from favouring and prioritising their own products over different platforms.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/us-lawmakers-press-big-tech-for-internal-research-on-kids-mental-health-374497" hreflang="en">US lawmakers press Big Tech for internal research on kids' mental health</a>

Earlier, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar had introduced a similar bill. The antitrust bill was introduced in February and included similar measures.

Hawley, while referring to Klobuchar’s bill said the following - "I'm willing to work with her and anybody of any party and any background. I like a lot of what Senator Klobuchar has proposed."

He also referred to his bill as "significantly tougher."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/biden-campaign-received-usd-15-million-in-donations-from-big-tech-employees-report-365201" hreflang="en">Biden campaign received USD 15 million in donations from big tech employees: Report</a>

In the House of Representatives, David Cicilline has put forward plans to introduce a series of antitrust bills. Reuters also reported that Hawley remains undecided on his support for Lina Khan, who had been nominated to be a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, which works with the US Justice Department to keep antitrust laws running.

Hawley, while referring to her said that he “very impressed”, but also said that “he has not made a final decision”.

A senator from the United States wants to ban all future purchases from Big Tech. Josh Hawley, a Republican on Monday introduced a bill banning all mergers and acquisitions by any big company which is valued over $100 billion.

A senator from the United States wants to ban all future purchases from Big Tech. Josh Hawley, a Republican on Monday introduced a bill banning all mergers and acquisitions by any big company which is valued over $100 billion. The over $100 billion category includes five big US tech companies. Hawley has accused big social media companies of clipping conservative voices along with criticism of pharmaceuticals, which he felt held too much market power. The new bill would ban companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Facebook from making future deals and would also stop them from favouring and prioritising their own products over different platforms. Also read: US lawmakers press Big Tech for internal research on kids' mental health Earlier, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar had introduced a similar bill. The antitrust bill was introduced in February and included similar measures. Hawley, while referring to Klobuchar’s bill said the following - "I'm willing to work with her and anybody of any party and any background. I like a lot of what Senator Klobuchar has proposed." He also referred to his bill as "significantly tougher." Also read: Biden campaign received USD 15 million in donations from big tech employees: Report In the House of Representatives, David Cicilline has put forward plans to introduce a series of antitrust bills. Reuters also reported that Hawley remains undecided on his support for Lina Khan, who had been nominated to be a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, which works with the US Justice Department to keep antitrust laws running. Hawley, while referring to her said that he “very impressed”, but also said that “he has not made a final decision”.

US senator introduces bill to ban Big Tech from foreign acquisitions

India is the world's second-biggest online market. But is the Indian Govt doing enough to regulate the big players? Why India does not have laws to regulate the big tech?

Gravitas: No rules to regulate big tech?

Australia wants tech giants to pay for news. In response, Google has threatened to disable search in Australia. While Facebook says it will not allow users to share news items. Palki Sharma Upadhyay tells you more about Big Tech's bullying in Australia.

Gravitas: Australia wants Google to pay for news; Google threatens to turn off search

Big tech is now on target of lawmakers around the world. Tech giants have immense power over what you get to read or watch. Moreover, they have been accused of avoiding billions in taxes and killing competition. Palki Sharma Upadhyay tells you more.

Gravitas: Big tech is 'avoiding $2.8 billion in tax' in countries like India

The monopoly of a big tech company is a clear danger to everyone involved. Do you know as to how many companies they have swallowed in the past few years? WION brings you a report.

Big tech killing competition with acquisitions?

big-tech-companies

Big Tech Companies, News on Big Tech Companies, stories on Big Tech Companies, articles on Big Tech Companies, Big Tech Companies stories at Wion, Big Tech Companies news, Big Tech Companies latest news

big tech-companies