The strategy to produce a series of smaller bills is aimed at lowering opposition from tech companies and their lobbyists towards a single piece of legislation

US House antitrust chairman plans multiple bills to go after Big Tech

A House Judiciary panel focused on antitrust will hear from three witnesses on Friday who represent a range of news organizations with concerns about how big tech platforms like Facebook and Alphabet`s Google increasingly dominate their industry. 
 
The antitrust subcommittee leading the charge against tech platforms, and in this instance focusing on their relations with news organizations, will also hear from Microsoft President Brad Smith. 
 
Social media companies use news to attract customers and have been accused by news publishers of not sharing enough advertising revenue with them. 
 
Witnesses for Friday`s hearing include David Chavern, head of the News Media Alliance which includes News Corp and USA Today among others; Emily Barr, who represents the National Association of Broadcasters and Graham Media Group, which has 7 local TV stations; and Jonathan Schleuss, president of the NewsGuild-CWA, a union representing journalists, the statement said. 
 
Bipartisan members of Congress are expected to introduce a bill in the near future that will make it easier for smaller news organizations to negotiate better deals with Big Tech platforms and increase their revenues.

A House Judiciary panel focused on antitrust will hear from three witnesses on Friday who represent a range of news organizations with concerns about how big tech platforms like Facebook and Alphabet`s Google increasingly dominate their industry.

A House Judiciary panel focused on antitrust will hear from three witnesses on Friday who represent a range of news organizations with concerns about how big tech platforms like Facebook and Alphabet`s Google increasingly dominate their industry. The antitrust subcommittee leading the charge against tech platforms, and in this instance focusing on their relations with news organizations, will also hear from Microsoft President Brad Smith. Social media companies use news to attract customers and have been accused by news publishers of not sharing enough advertising revenue with them. Witnesses for Friday`s hearing include David Chavern, head of the News Media Alliance which includes News Corp and USA Today among others; Emily Barr, who represents the National Association of Broadcasters and Graham Media Group, which has 7 local TV stations; and Jonathan Schleuss, president of the NewsGuild-CWA, a union representing journalists, the statement said. Bipartisan members of Congress are expected to introduce a bill in the near future that will make it easier for smaller news organizations to negotiate better deals with Big Tech platforms and increase their revenues.

US hearing on tech dominance of news outlets will include Microsoft

Big tech is taking over the world by establishing monopolies. Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Wednesday that it acquires a new company every month.

The acquisition strategy is aimed at offering better services but tech companies are killing competition one sale at a time.

Many lawmakers in recent years have called for laws and regulations to rein in dominant&nbsp;tech&nbsp;companies such as Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc.

Turi inc. was once a promising artificial intelligence startup in Seattle. The company helped create software that uses machine learning. Its technology was so promising that Apple bought the company and paid&nbsp;a record $200 million for it.

While buying companies is not new for tech giants, the speed at which they are lapping up competitors is alarming.

Apple CEO&nbsp;Tim Cook revealed that they have acquired over 100 companies in nearly six&nbsp;years. This means buying one company every three&nbsp;to four&nbsp;weeks.

This includes the $3 billion takeover of headphone maker Beats and music recognition app Shazam.

Apple isn't the only company that does hostile takeovers. Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp when it threatened its popularity within a span of two years.

Big tech giants are on an acquisition spree. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines...

The idea is simple: Eliminate potential rivals, kill innovation and poach talent from smaller companies.

At the centre of this&nbsp;is a big tech monopoly. The last two&nbsp;decades have witnessed the rise of five&nbsp;major global tech giants. These include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.

Today, these tech giants wield too much power. Each of them monopolistic in their own domain. They exercise enormous power over our digital lives, controlling the way we navigate through the web.

Some are even trying to manipulate the way democracies run while others have taken the privacy of users for granted. The way to restore the power balance is to break up big tech.

Current US antitrust laws allow federal regulators to break up mergers, a&nbsp;move that could promote healthy competition in the market.

For global regulators, breaking up monopolies needs a new legal toolbox. Either way,&nbsp;the idea is to level the playing field and protect the future of the internet.

Big tech is taking over the world by establishing monopolies. Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Wednesday that it acquires a new company every month. The acquisition strategy is aimed at offering better services but tech companies are killing competition one sale at a time.

Big tech is taking over the world by establishing monopolies. Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Wednesday that it acquires a new company every month. The acquisition strategy is aimed at offering better services but tech companies are killing competition one sale at a time. Many lawmakers in recent years have called for laws and regulations to rein in dominant tech companies such as Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc. Turi inc. was once a promising artificial intelligence startup in Seattle. The company helped create software that uses machine learning. Its technology was so promising that Apple bought the company and paid a record $200 million for it. While buying companies is not new for tech giants, the speed at which they are lapping up competitors is alarming. Apple CEO Tim Cook revealed that they have acquired over 100 companies in nearly six years. This means buying one company every three to four weeks. This includes the $3 billion takeover of headphone maker Beats and music recognition app Shazam. Apple isn't the only company that does hostile takeovers. Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp when it threatened its popularity within a span of two years. Big tech giants are on an acquisition spree. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines... The idea is simple: Eliminate potential rivals, kill innovation and poach talent from smaller companies. At the centre of this is a big tech monopoly. The last two decades have witnessed the rise of five major global tech giants. These include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. Today, these tech giants wield too much power. Each of them monopolistic in their own domain. They exercise enormous power over our digital lives, controlling the way we navigate through the web. Some are even trying to manipulate the way democracies run while others have taken the privacy of users for granted. The way to restore the power balance is to break up big tech. Current US antitrust laws allow federal regulators to break up mergers, a move that could promote healthy competition in the market. For global regulators, breaking up monopolies needs a new legal toolbox. Either way, the idea is to level the playing field and protect the future of the internet.

Tim Cook says Apple buys one company every month

A report by Wall Street Journal based on US Campaign Finance Records has said that US President Joe Biden's campaign received at least USD 15.1 million from employees of big tech firms in donations. The report has said that the companies include Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Facebook. This made up biggest source of donations to Democrats among corporate employees.

Biden campaign received USD 15 million in donations from big tech employees: Report

A report by Wall Street Journal based on US Campaign Finance Records has said that US President Joe Biden's campaign received at least USD 15.1 million from employees of big tech firms in donations. The report has said that the companies include Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Facebook. This made up biggest source of donations to Democrats among corporate employees.

Corporations are prohibited from directly donating to campaigns. But their employees are free to donate as individuals. USA's Federal Election Commission requires individuals who contribute USD 200 or more to report their employer.

The companies have declined to comment after the WSJ reveal.

Microsoft employees donated USD 3.2 million to Biden in the election. Microsoft employees have long been a top source of money for Democratic presidential candidates.

Facebook employees have emerged as another top source of money, donating USD 1.9 million to Biden's campaign.

Employees of Amazon contributed a total of USD 2.8 million to Biden’s campaign.&nbsp;

Republican Party has been asserting for long that big tech companies were biased against them. They have also accused companies like Facebook and Google of censoring online content to favour liberal views.

Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai are set to testify before US House of Representatives panel next month. Biden administration will also be picking the heads for key bodies dealing with the tech companies - &nbsp;like Federal Trade Commission, Justice Department Antitrust Division. The picks will be interesting as it will largely determine how the government under Joe Biden handles the big tech

A report by Wall Street Journal based on US Campaign Finance Records has said that US President Joe Biden's campaign received at least USD 15.1 million from employees of big tech firms in donations.

A report by Wall Street Journal based on US Campaign Finance Records has said that US President Joe Biden's campaign received at least USD 15.1 million from employees of big tech firms in donations. The report has said that the companies include Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Facebook. This made up biggest source of donations to Democrats among corporate employees. Corporations are prohibited from directly donating to campaigns. But their employees are free to donate as individuals. USA's Federal Election Commission requires individuals who contribute USD 200 or more to report their employer. The companies have declined to comment after the WSJ reveal. Microsoft employees donated USD 3.2 million to Biden in the election. Microsoft employees have long been a top source of money for Democratic presidential candidates. Facebook employees have emerged as another top source of money, donating USD 1.9 million to Biden's campaign. Employees of Amazon contributed a total of USD 2.8 million to Biden’s campaign. Republican Party has been asserting for long that big tech companies were biased against them. They have also accused companies like Facebook and Google of censoring online content to favour liberal views. Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai are set to testify before US House of Representatives panel next month. Biden administration will also be picking the heads for key bodies dealing with the tech companies - like Federal Trade Commission, Justice Department Antitrust Division. The picks will be interesting as it will largely determine how the government under Joe Biden handles the big tech

There are&nbsp;only 22 countries in the world&nbsp;the British have not invaded.&nbsp;India too&nbsp;was a British colony between 1858 and 1947.

In 2021,&nbsp;the world is staring at another colonial threat, this time&nbsp;it's from big tech. Many lawmakers in recent years have called for laws and regulations to rein in dominant&nbsp;tech&nbsp;companies such as Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc.

The big tech&nbsp;has become the&nbsp;new East India Company as it&nbsp;colonising the world.

The East India Company began establishing trading posts in India in the year 1600.

<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/gravitas-is-big-tech-the-new-east-india-company-364645/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In 1612, it defeated the Portuguese. Soon it went after local traders&nbsp;and killed their business.

Amazon launched its operations in India in 2013. It began killing brick and mortar businesses due to which some of them moved online but they were quashed by predatory pricing and prefered sellers.

When India announced an investigation into Amazon in January 2020, the company challenged the probe.

Back in the 17th century- the British East India Company had established a monopoly in India. Today, companies like Amazon are doing the same.

Facebook follows the same strategy to kill competitors, establish a monopoly. It&nbsp;has made at least 81 acquisitions since 2005.

When Instagram threatened Facebook's popularity,&nbsp;it was acquired in 2012. Then Facebook started copying&nbsp;Snapchat's features.&nbsp;It did everything to ensure Instagram does not have any major competitor.

Similarly, when&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;posed a challenge,&nbsp;Facebook bought it as well&nbsp;in 2014.

Tech giants regularly acquire start-ups to kill innovation and&nbsp;drain small players by hiring or&nbsp;poaching their talent. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines as&nbsp;Google has colonised the online search space.

As per the East India company's playbook, it&nbsp;went after policies after establishing a monopoly.

By the 18th century, the trading company became involved in politics. Its aim was to maintain its trading privilege and expand its wings.

Today, tech giants are doing the same. In the US&nbsp;Amazon is trying to lobby against all its competitors by&nbsp;bidding for billions of dollars worth of government contracts.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has embedded himself in Washington. His $23 million mansion sits not too far from the White House.

In 2019, Amazon spent over $8.1 million on lobbying. This is more than any tech company.

A Bloomberg report claims- amazon has increased its spending on lobbying by over 460 per cent since 2012.

Amazon reportedly paid zero federal tax on its profits in the US&nbsp;In 2018. This was for the second year in a row.

Amazon&nbsp;has been facing increasing scrutiny by Indian regulators, and the latest report provided an inside look at the cat-and-mouse game&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;has played with India's government, adjusting its corporate structures each time the government imposed new restrictions aimed at protecting small traders.

After the 1757 battle of Plassey- the East India company became very powerful.&nbsp;In 1764, it won the battle of Buxar.&nbsp;Soon it was granted the Diwani of Bengal.&nbsp;

Facebook&nbsp;wiped out pages from Australian state governments and charities as well as from domestic and international news organisations, three days before the launch of a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programme.

It's dictating terms and bullying and blackmailing elected lawmakers. The company has blocked news and&nbsp;is controlling the reach of the press. Big tech has become that powerful!

Facebook has a history of abusing legal gaps. It came under limelight for the privacy concerns of WhatsApp policies recently.

The only way to ensure that big tech&nbsp;does not re-inflict the damage done by the East India Company is to legislate.

India must regulate big tech, protect home companies and the country's&nbsp;interests offline.

India must learn from its history and ensure that the country isn't left vulnerable to digital colonisation by big tech as it was to British colonisation- by the East India Company.

If in the 1600s India had the spices and raw materials. Today,&nbsp;India has the world's largest online market outside China.

In the 1600s- the Portuguese and the British East India company were betting on India. Today- it's the silicon valley giants.

India must ensure that this time that it emerges as the only winner.

There are only 22 countries in the world the British have not invaded. India too was a British colony between 1858 and 1947. In 2021, the world is staring at another colonial threat, this time it's from big tech.

There are only 22 countries in the world the British have not invaded. India too was a British colony between 1858 and 1947. In 2021, the world is staring at another colonial threat, this time it's from big tech. Many lawmakers in recent years have called for laws and regulations to rein in dominant tech companies such as Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc. The big tech has become the new East India Company as it colonising the world. The East India Company began establishing trading posts in India in the year 1600. × In 1612, it defeated the Portuguese. Soon it went after local traders and killed their business. Amazon launched its operations in India in 2013. It began killing brick and mortar businesses due to which some of them moved online but they were quashed by predatory pricing and prefered sellers. When India announced an investigation into Amazon in January 2020, the company challenged the probe. Back in the 17th century- the British East India Company had established a monopoly in India. Today, companies like Amazon are doing the same. Facebook follows the same strategy to kill competitors, establish a monopoly. It has made at least 81 acquisitions since 2005. When Instagram threatened Facebook's popularity, it was acquired in 2012. Then Facebook started copying Snapchat's features. It did everything to ensure Instagram does not have any major competitor. Similarly, when WhatsApp posed a challenge, Facebook bought it as well in 2014. Tech giants regularly acquire start-ups to kill innovation and drain small players by hiring or poaching their talent. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines as Google has colonised the online search space. As per the East India company's playbook, it went after policies after establishing a monopoly. By the 18th century, the trading company became involved in politics. Its aim was to maintain its trading privilege and expand its wings. Today, tech giants are doing the same. In the US Amazon is trying to lobby against all its competitors by bidding for billions of dollars worth of government contracts. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has embedded himself in Washington. His $23 million mansion sits not too far from the White House. In 2019, Amazon spent over $8.1 million on lobbying. This is more than any tech company. A Bloomberg report claims- amazon has increased its spending on lobbying by over 460 per cent since 2012. Amazon reportedly paid zero federal tax on its profits in the US In 2018. This was for the second year in a row. Amazon has been facing increasing scrutiny by Indian regulators, and the latest report provided an inside look at the cat-and-mouse game Amazon has played with India's government, adjusting its corporate structures each time the government imposed new restrictions aimed at protecting small traders. After the 1757 battle of Plassey- the East India company became very powerful. In 1764, it won the battle of Buxar. Soon it was granted the Diwani of Bengal. Facebook wiped out pages from Australian state governments and charities as well as from domestic and international news organisations, three days before the launch of a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programme. It's dictating terms and bullying and blackmailing elected lawmakers. The company has blocked news and is controlling the reach of the press. Big tech has become that powerful! Facebook has a history of abusing legal gaps. It came under limelight for the privacy concerns of WhatsApp policies recently. The only way to ensure that big tech does not re-inflict the damage done by the East India Company is to legislate. India must regulate big tech, protect home companies and the country's interests offline. India must learn from its history and ensure that the country isn't left vulnerable to digital colonisation by big tech as it was to British colonisation- by the East India Company. If in the 1600s India had the spices and raw materials. Today, India has the world's largest online market outside China. In the 1600s- the Portuguese and the British East India company were betting on India. Today- it's the silicon valley giants. India must ensure that this time that it emerges as the only winner.

'Digital colonialism': Has big tech become the new East India Company

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg on Friday held talks with Australian government over law that will force the social media giant to pay for content. Australian PM Scott Morrison has taken a tuff stand and has said that the country will not yield to 'threats' from big tech.

From Thursday, Australians could no longer post links to news articles or view the Facebook pages of Australian outlets, which are also barred from sharing their content.&nbsp; 
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he had spoken with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday, and that negotiations would continue over the weekend.

"We talked through their remaining issues and agreed our respective teams would work through them immediately," Frydenberg said on Twitter.

Australian PM Scott Morrison told media in Sydney that Facebook's ban constituted 'threat'

<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/gravitas-facebooks-wipes-out-news-in-australia-364629/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

"I thought that was not a good move on their part, and they should move quickly past that, come back to the table," he said.

Facebook's news ban has come in response to a planned Australian law which will force tech giants like Facebok and Google to to pay major Australian outlets for carrying snippets or links to their content on the platforms

Morrison said the legislation -- due to be debated by Australia's Senate on Monday in the next step towards it becoming law -- was garnering interest from other world leaders.

The law was raised in a Thursday call with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he said.

"There's a lot of interest in it," he told media. "People are looking at what Australia is doing."

Facebook has defended its response, saying the proposed legislation was unworkable and insisting it was forced to introduce the news blackout.

Since the ban came into effect, experts report visitors to Australian news sites dropped both at home and abroad, with overseas traffic down by over 20 percent per day, according to data analytics company Chartbeat.

The data also suggested users were not yet leaving Facebook in response to the ban, however, with no apparent rise in Google search traffic recorded.

Facebook's sweeping ban drew widespread criticism for inadvertently blocking access to several critical government pages, including emergency services, health departments and the national weather service -- with most restored in the hours after it came into effect.

(With AFP inputs)

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg on Friday held talks with Australian government over law that will force the social media giant to pay for content. Australian PM Scott Morrison has taken a tuff stand and has said that the country will not yield to 'threats' from big tech.

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg on Friday held talks with Australian government over law that will force the social media giant to pay for content. Australian PM Scott Morrison has taken a tuff stand and has said that the country will not yield to 'threats' from big tech. From Thursday, Australians could no longer post links to news articles or view the Facebook pages of Australian outlets, which are also barred from sharing their content. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he had spoken with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday, and that negotiations would continue over the weekend. "We talked through their remaining issues and agreed our respective teams would work through them immediately," Frydenberg said on Twitter. Australian PM Scott Morrison told media in Sydney that Facebook's ban constituted 'threat' × "I thought that was not a good move on their part, and they should move quickly past that, come back to the table," he said. Facebook's news ban has come in response to a planned Australian law which will force tech giants like Facebok and Google to to pay major Australian outlets for carrying snippets or links to their content on the platforms Morrison said the legislation -- due to be debated by Australia's Senate on Monday in the next step towards it becoming law -- was garnering interest from other world leaders. The law was raised in a Thursday call with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he said. "There's a lot of interest in it," he told media. "People are looking at what Australia is doing." Facebook has defended its response, saying the proposed legislation was unworkable and insisting it was forced to introduce the news blackout. Since the ban came into effect, experts report visitors to Australian news sites dropped both at home and abroad, with overseas traffic down by over 20 percent per day, according to data analytics company Chartbeat. The data also suggested users were not yet leaving Facebook in response to the ban, however, with no apparent rise in Google search traffic recorded. Facebook's sweeping ban drew widespread criticism for inadvertently blocking access to several critical government pages, including emergency services, health departments and the national weather service -- with most restored in the hours after it came into effect. (With AFP inputs)

After banning news in Australia, Facebook enters into talks with government

The British directly ruled India for nearly 200 years. Now there is another colonial threat staring at India. WION's Palki Sharma tells you about the New East India Company.

Gravitas: Is Big Tech the New East India Company?

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday warned against the increasing influence large tech companies wield. He said &nbsp;that these tech giants were "competing" with states. Russia is ramping up pressure on foreign internet companies. The companies usually are not subject to state censorship that majority of Russian media outlets work under.

Putin sounded the warning during his virtual address at Davos virtual economic summit. He said it was unclear where the line should be drawn between &nbsp;a "succesful global business" and "attempts to crudely, at their own discretion, control society".

"We just saw it all in the United States," he added, referring to riots earlier this month in Washington led by supporters of then US President Donald Trump.

Moscow earlier this week accused US tech giants of interfering in Russia's internal affairs, in particular during anti-government protests led by supporters of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny on Saturday.&nbsp;

Ahead of the rallies, Russia's media watchdog Roskomnadzor ordered several online platforms, including YouTube and Instagram, to delete posts by users calling for protesters to attend demonstrations.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the lower house State Duma's foreign interference committee, Vasily Piskaryov, said that the head of TikTok's Russian branch had been invited to parliament for a conversation.&nbsp;

\Piskaryov was cited by the TASS news agency as saying that "questions had piled up" about the China-based video-sharing service.

In recent months, TikTok has emerged as a popular platform for young Russians to express their political views.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-biden-putin-phone-call-russias-lower-house-of-parliament-approves-new-start-nuclear-control-treaty-359670">After Biden-Putin phone call, Russia's lower house of Parliament approves New START nuclear control treaty</a>

Hashtags dedicated to Navalny have been trending on TikTok, garnering more than 1.5 billion views, after the anti-corruption campaigner was jailed on his return to Russia from Germany.

(With AFP inputs)

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday warned against the increasing influence large tech companies wield. He said that these tech giants were "competing" with states.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday warned against the increasing influence large tech companies wield. He said that these tech giants were "competing" with states. Russia is ramping up pressure on foreign internet companies. The companies usually are not subject to state censorship that majority of Russian media outlets work under. Putin sounded the warning during his virtual address at Davos virtual economic summit. He said it was unclear where the line should be drawn between a "succesful global business" and "attempts to crudely, at their own discretion, control society". "We just saw it all in the United States," he added, referring to riots earlier this month in Washington led by supporters of then US President Donald Trump. Moscow earlier this week accused US tech giants of interfering in Russia's internal affairs, in particular during anti-government protests led by supporters of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny on Saturday. Ahead of the rallies, Russia's media watchdog Roskomnadzor ordered several online platforms, including YouTube and Instagram, to delete posts by users calling for protesters to attend demonstrations. On Wednesday, the chairman of the lower house State Duma's foreign interference committee, Vasily Piskaryov, said that the head of TikTok's Russian branch had been invited to parliament for a conversation. \Piskaryov was cited by the TASS news agency as saying that "questions had piled up" about the China-based video-sharing service. In recent months, TikTok has emerged as a popular platform for young Russians to express their political views. Also Read | After Biden-Putin phone call, Russia's lower house of Parliament approves New START nuclear control treaty Hashtags dedicated to Navalny have been trending on TikTok, garnering more than 1.5 billion views, after the anti-corruption campaigner was jailed on his return to Russia from Germany. (With AFP inputs)

Putin warns against influence of tech giants, says they 'compete' with states

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

For four years, the tweets of Donald Trump dictated headlines worldwide. By using Twitter, Trump was able to bypass the traditional media, evade their critical questions, even incite a mob that would storm the US Capitol. Only when big tech took a stand, and banned the former president, did Donald Trump stop spreading lies about vote-rigging.

This tells a lot about power of tech giants. They influence the hearts and minds of voters worldwide. They do not consider themselves the media. They call themselves tech platforms. But they profit from the media.

In 2020, the pandemic shut down the world and shuttered many businesses. But, big tech remained immune to the virus. Earning big money from a combination of revenue streams. Tech giants added more than 160 billion dollars to their market value last year.&nbsp;

The news industry is bleeding money. According to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the global newspaper industry's combined advertising and circulation revenue will fall drastically from 108 billion dollars in 2019, to 86 billion dollars in 2024.

Tech companies are leveraging a major shift in user habits. People turn to social media for breaking news now. And digital news feeds have replaced the front pages of newspapers. The big tech pulls this off by exploiting loopholes in tax laws.

The organization for economic co-operation and development has made an assessment. It believes governments worldwide have lost 240 billion dollars in taxes from big tech.

The developing world has suffered the biggest losses.&nbsp;

According to NGO Action Aid; &nbsp;Google, Facebook and Microsoft should be paying more corporation tax to developing nations. They are missing out on 2.8 billion dollars in tax revenues. Action aid says countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and Bangladesh have the highest tax gaps.

Beyond tax avoidance, an acquisition spree has allowed big tech to monopolise the market.

Since 2005, Google's parent company Alphabet along with Apple, Amazon and Facebook have acquired 385 companies in the US.

Alphabet alone has bought out 185 companies. This buying spree had caught the attention of regulators worldwide.

US Federal Trade Commission, the EU, and Australia's Competition and Consumer Commission scrutinizing the deals. Access to large volumes of free content, outdated tax laws and relentless acquisitions have turned big tech into big media.

Global regulators need a new legal toolbox to break their monopoly.

There is a need to level the playing field and make the giants pay.

For four years, the tweets of Donald Trump dictated headlines worldwide. By using Twitter, Trump was able to bypass the traditional media, evade their critical questions, even incite a mob that would storm the US Capitol.

For four years, the tweets of Donald Trump dictated headlines worldwide. By using Twitter, Trump was able to bypass the traditional media, evade their critical questions, even incite a mob that would storm the US Capitol. Only when big tech took a stand, and banned the former president, did Donald Trump stop spreading lies about vote-rigging. This tells a lot about power of tech giants. They influence the hearts and minds of voters worldwide. They do not consider themselves the media. They call themselves tech platforms. But they profit from the media. In 2020, the pandemic shut down the world and shuttered many businesses. But, big tech remained immune to the virus. Earning big money from a combination of revenue streams. Tech giants added more than 160 billion dollars to their market value last year. The news industry is bleeding money. According to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the global newspaper industry's combined advertising and circulation revenue will fall drastically from 108 billion dollars in 2019, to 86 billion dollars in 2024. Tech companies are leveraging a major shift in user habits. People turn to social media for breaking news now. And digital news feeds have replaced the front pages of newspapers. The big tech pulls this off by exploiting loopholes in tax laws. The organization for economic co-operation and development has made an assessment. It believes governments worldwide have lost 240 billion dollars in taxes from big tech. The developing world has suffered the biggest losses. According to NGO Action Aid; Google, Facebook and Microsoft should be paying more corporation tax to developing nations. They are missing out on 2.8 billion dollars in tax revenues. Action aid says countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and Bangladesh have the highest tax gaps. Beyond tax avoidance, an acquisition spree has allowed big tech to monopolise the market. Since 2005, Google's parent company Alphabet along with Apple, Amazon and Facebook have acquired 385 companies in the US. Alphabet alone has bought out 185 companies. This buying spree had caught the attention of regulators worldwide. US Federal Trade Commission, the EU, and Australia's Competition and Consumer Commission scrutinizing the deals. Access to large volumes of free content, outdated tax laws and relentless acquisitions have turned big tech into big media. Global regulators need a new legal toolbox to break their monopoly. There is a need to level the playing field and make the giants pay.

Time to break monopoly of Big Tech?

India is the world's second-biggest online market. 743 million Indians use the internet. That's twice the size of US market. The number is unmatched by any country except the neighbour provoking in Ladakh.

India's market potential is no secret. When internet exploded in the country in the first half of the century Silicon Valley CEOs rushed to India to profit from the market.

Today, at least 241 million Indians use Facebook. The company's revenue grew 43% in FY 20'. Google's profit increased 24% in FY 20'

India is home to the world's largest digital literacy programme. But in India,&nbsp;tech companies have a free run. There is no awareness or concern about the threat posed by big tech.

India is doing nothing to regulate them. To check their anti-trust approaches, their anti-competitive behaviour, or to break their monopoly. In December 2019, India finally introduced the data protection bill. One year on, it is gathering dust. Even if it is passed, it may not be able to address real problems.

For example, the bill says- the person to whom a data relates should be given the right to control it. In other words, the data can only be processed with the consent of its owner. This is a fair point. But in India, we give away consent for our data in return of discounts and free apps.

India needs laws that can identify loopholes and plug them. India needs laws that can be applied and enforced. Laws- that have provisions for exemplary punishment.

In 2018, India's Competition Commission probed Google, for abusing its dominance online. The complaint was filed by Consim Info,&nbsp;the parent company of a matrimonial site.

Google was found guilty. It was fined 136 crore rupees.

Google appealed. And by all accounts that WION have been able to access, Google hasn't paid the fine, nor has it fixed its ways. It is still playing unfair.

India's competition commission has also not been able to do much to check the monopoly of Big Tech.

Silicon valley companies have abused India's regulatory gaps. They have built a wall of opacity and untouchability around them. There is no clarity on any of their policies.

In another example, Twitter India had temporarily blocked the account of India's Home Minister Amit Shah in November 2020.

India's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology recently quizzed Twitter about it. The tech giant reportedly said the minister's account had to be blocked because of a copyright issue with a picture.

Earlier it had said that there was 'inadvertent error' under its copyright policies. By the end of the grilling session, India's lawmakers agreed- that the country's existing laws need to be updated. India needs laws that are proactive, not reactive.

India's Central Bureau of Investigation has booked Cambridge Analytica and Global Science Research Limited. For illegally harvesting data of Indian users. The data theft was authorised by Facebook.

Nearly 6 lakh Indian Facebook users are expected to have been hit.

All this could have been avoided if India had the necessary frameworks in place.

WhatsApp spoke of privacy policy for Indian users some days ago. Why didn't Whatsapp's parent company Facebook did not dare think of such a policy for Europe? The answer is Europe's tough law-- the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) India doesn't have anything like it

Another reason why India needs tougher laws is illiteracy. The fake news and hate speeches that cannot be spread in letters, are being circulated through videos. Mediums like WhatsApp have penetrated every layer of Indian society. They have become a threat.

India should come up with tough laws to prevent corporate abuse of power. To prevent bundling of products. To ensure 'Made in India' companies are not booted out of the market or acquired by the big 4

The pandemic has forced more companies and consumers to go online. The worldwide web is not the future anymore. It is the present. India needs to keep up with this digital reality.

India is the world's second-biggest online market. 743 million Indians use the internet. That's twice the size of US market. The number is unmatched by any country except the neighbour provoking in Ladakh.

India is the world's second-biggest online market. 743 million Indians use the internet. That's twice the size of US market. The number is unmatched by any country except the neighbour provoking in Ladakh. India's market potential is no secret. When internet exploded in the country in the first half of the century Silicon Valley CEOs rushed to India to profit from the market. Today, at least 241 million Indians use Facebook. The company's revenue grew 43% in FY 20'. Google's profit increased 24% in FY 20' India is home to the world's largest digital literacy programme. But in India, tech companies have a free run. There is no awareness or concern about the threat posed by big tech. India is doing nothing to regulate them. To check their anti-trust approaches, their anti-competitive behaviour, or to break their monopoly. In December 2019, India finally introduced the data protection bill. One year on, it is gathering dust. Even if it is passed, it may not be able to address real problems. For example, the bill says- the person to whom a data relates should be given the right to control it. In other words, the data can only be processed with the consent of its owner. This is a fair point. But in India, we give away consent for our data in return of discounts and free apps. India needs laws that can identify loopholes and plug them. India needs laws that can be applied and enforced. Laws- that have provisions for exemplary punishment. In 2018, India's Competition Commission probed Google, for abusing its dominance online. The complaint was filed by Consim Info, the parent company of a matrimonial site. Google was found guilty. It was fined 136 crore rupees. Google appealed. And by all accounts that WION have been able to access, Google hasn't paid the fine, nor has it fixed its ways. It is still playing unfair. India's competition commission has also not been able to do much to check the monopoly of Big Tech. Silicon valley companies have abused India's regulatory gaps. They have built a wall of opacity and untouchability around them. There is no clarity on any of their policies. In another example, Twitter India had temporarily blocked the account of India's Home Minister Amit Shah in November 2020. India's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology recently quizzed Twitter about it. The tech giant reportedly said the minister's account had to be blocked because of a copyright issue with a picture. Earlier it had said that there was 'inadvertent error' under its copyright policies. By the end of the grilling session, India's lawmakers agreed- that the country's existing laws need to be updated. India needs laws that are proactive, not reactive. India's Central Bureau of Investigation has booked Cambridge Analytica and Global Science Research Limited. For illegally harvesting data of Indian users. The data theft was authorised by Facebook. Nearly 6 lakh Indian Facebook users are expected to have been hit. All this could have been avoided if India had the necessary frameworks in place. WhatsApp spoke of privacy policy for Indian users some days ago. Why didn't Whatsapp's parent company Facebook did not dare think of such a policy for Europe? The answer is Europe's tough law-- the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) India doesn't have anything like it Another reason why India needs tougher laws is illiteracy. The fake news and hate speeches that cannot be spread in letters, are being circulated through videos. Mediums like WhatsApp have penetrated every layer of Indian society. They have become a threat. India should come up with tough laws to prevent corporate abuse of power. To prevent bundling of products. To ensure 'Made in India' companies are not booted out of the market or acquired by the big 4 The pandemic has forced more companies and consumers to go online. The worldwide web is not the future anymore. It is the present. India needs to keep up with this digital reality.

India needs tougher laws to rein in Big Tech

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?

How big is big tech? How much influence does it wield? How much does it know about you? How much it shapes your life and future? WION's report tells you exactly how much control you've given to a handful of tech companies.

Decoding the powers of Facebook, Google & Twitter

In the past week, “Big Tech” - applications like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, and others have taken unprecedented decisions, like booting&nbsp;US President Trump out of their platforms. By next week, Donald Trump is also slated to leave the presidential office, but for now he remains the world’s most powerful leader.

12 technology companies have either banned Donald Trump, or restricted him in the aftermath of the violence which led to five deaths in the US Capitol last week.

Donald Trump can no longer update his status on Facebook, or Tweet. He is also banned from Google, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitch. In addition, TikTok has also banned the US president who wanted a ban on the app itself.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-second-impeachment-attempt-greatest-witch-hunt-in-history-356318">Trump calls second impeachment attempt 'greatest witch-hunt in history'</a>

The internet has turned on Donald Trump, and the medium that once celebrated him has now dumped him. Trump can't even go to Parler - a mash-up of Twitter and Instagram which is largely considered a right-wing social media application.

It has been banned by Apple, Google and Amazon, denying the platform any internet presence. The unfathomable violence that took place at US Capitol cannot be defended, but Big Tech has taken the route of censorship. They can silence an elected president, and can also shutdown an app.

Should Big Tech have such superpowers? &nbsp;

Private companies with unchecked power have the possibility of becoming bigger than law itself, and world leaders have woken up to this reality.

Angela Merkel’s spokesperson has issued a statement, claiming that Twitter’s ban on Trump is “problematic”. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has slammed the ban too, calling it a “bad sign”. Nikki Haley, the former US Ambassador to the UN compared the ban to political censorship in China. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny called it "an unacceptable act of censorship". British Health Secretary Matt Hancock believes it’s time to regulate social media companies.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/twitter-suspends-70000-qanon-related-accounts-trump-supporters-plan-flop-protest-356161" hreflang="en">Twitter suspends 70,000 QAnon-related accounts; Trump supporters plan 'flop' protest</a>

Twitter still stands by on its ban on Trump. Now, Facebook says the ban on Trump is indefinite.

“No plans to lift it right now, but indefinite, at least through the transition, we've been very clear. There's obviously so much happening and this is such a big step. We will definitely let people know and be very transparent about any changes to that”, said Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook.

“This shows that even the president is not above the policies we have”, Sandberg added.

Big Tech is relentless, setting the rules of the game, with its decisions deemed final. From the president of a country, to an average user, a handful of tech giants can dictate the terms.

In the past week, “Big Tech” - applications like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, and others have taken unprecedented decisions, like booting US President Trump out of their platforms.

In the past week, “Big Tech” - applications like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, and others have taken unprecedented decisions, like booting US President Trump out of their platforms. By next week, Donald Trump is also slated to leave the presidential office, but for now he remains the world’s most powerful leader. 12 technology companies have either banned Donald Trump, or restricted him in the aftermath of the violence which led to five deaths in the US Capitol last week. Donald Trump can no longer update his status on Facebook, or Tweet. He is also banned from Google, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitch. In addition, TikTok has also banned the US president who wanted a ban on the app itself. Also read: Trump calls second impeachment attempt 'greatest witch-hunt in history' The internet has turned on Donald Trump, and the medium that once celebrated him has now dumped him. Trump can't even go to Parler - a mash-up of Twitter and Instagram which is largely considered a right-wing social media application. It has been banned by Apple, Google and Amazon, denying the platform any internet presence. The unfathomable violence that took place at US Capitol cannot be defended, but Big Tech has taken the route of censorship. They can silence an elected president, and can also shutdown an app. Should Big Tech have such superpowers? Private companies with unchecked power have the possibility of becoming bigger than law itself, and world leaders have woken up to this reality. Angela Merkel’s spokesperson has issued a statement, claiming that Twitter’s ban on Trump is “problematic”. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has slammed the ban too, calling it a “bad sign”. Nikki Haley, the former US Ambassador to the UN compared the ban to political censorship in China. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny called it "an unacceptable act of censorship". British Health Secretary Matt Hancock believes it’s time to regulate social media companies. Also read: Twitter suspends 70,000 QAnon-related accounts; Trump supporters plan 'flop' protest Twitter still stands by on its ban on Trump. Now, Facebook says the ban on Trump is indefinite. “No plans to lift it right now, but indefinite, at least through the transition, we've been very clear. There's obviously so much happening and this is such a big step. We will definitely let people know and be very transparent about any changes to that”, said Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook. “This shows that even the president is not above the policies we have”, Sandberg added. Big Tech is relentless, setting the rules of the game, with its decisions deemed final. From the president of a country, to an average user, a handful of tech giants can dictate the terms.

Big Tech's ban on Donald Trump sparks debate about power wielded by companies

While the rest of the US&nbsp;economy languished earlier this year, the tech industry’s biggest companies seemed immune to the downturn, surging as the country worked, learned and shopped from home.

On Thursday, as the economy is showing signs of improvement, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Facebook reported profits that highlighted how a recovery may provide another catalyst to help them generate a level of wealth that hasn’t been seen in a single industry in generations.

With an entrenched audience of users and the financial resources to press their leads in areas like cloud computing, e-commerce and digital advertising, the companies demonstrated again that economic malaise, upstart competitors and feisty antitrust regulators have had little effect on their bottom line.

Combined, the four companies reported a quarterly net profit of $38 billion.

Amazon reported record sales, and an almost 200% rise in profits, as the pandemic accelerated the transition to online shopping. Despite a boycott of its advertising over the summer, Facebook had another blockbuster quarter. Alphabet’s record quarterly net profit was up 59%, as marketers plowed money into advertisements for Google search and YouTube. And Apple’s sales rose even though the pandemic forced it to push back the iPhone 12’s release to October, in the current quarter.

On Tuesday, Microsoft, Amazon’s closest competitor in cloud computing, also reported its most profitable quarter, growing 30% from a year earlier.

“The scene that’s playing out fundamentally is that these tech stalwarts are gaining more market share by the day,” said Dan Ives, managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities. “It’s ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ for this group of tech companies and everyone else.”

The results were strong despite increasing antitrust scrutiny from regulators. Last week, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit accusing Google of cementing the dominance of its search engine through anti-competitive agreements with device makers and mobile carriers. Facebook faces a possible antitrust case from the Federal Trade Commission.

The companies’ advantages are becoming more pronounced in an economy starting to dig out from the coronavirus pandemic. On Thursday, the Commerce Department said US&nbsp;economic output grew 7.4% last quarter, the fastest pace on record, but remained below where it was in the last pre-pandemic quarter.

While the rest of the US economy languished earlier this year, the tech industry’s biggest companies seemed immune to the downturn, surging as the country worked, learned and shopped from home.

While the rest of the US economy languished earlier this year, the tech industry’s biggest companies seemed immune to the downturn, surging as the country worked, learned and shopped from home. On Thursday, as the economy is showing signs of improvement, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Facebook reported profits that highlighted how a recovery may provide another catalyst to help them generate a level of wealth that hasn’t been seen in a single industry in generations. With an entrenched audience of users and the financial resources to press their leads in areas like cloud computing, e-commerce and digital advertising, the companies demonstrated again that economic malaise, upstart competitors and feisty antitrust regulators have had little effect on their bottom line. Combined, the four companies reported a quarterly net profit of $38 billion. Amazon reported record sales, and an almost 200% rise in profits, as the pandemic accelerated the transition to online shopping. Despite a boycott of its advertising over the summer, Facebook had another blockbuster quarter. Alphabet’s record quarterly net profit was up 59%, as marketers plowed money into advertisements for Google search and YouTube. And Apple’s sales rose even though the pandemic forced it to push back the iPhone 12’s release to October, in the current quarter. On Tuesday, Microsoft, Amazon’s closest competitor in cloud computing, also reported its most profitable quarter, growing 30% from a year earlier. “The scene that’s playing out fundamentally is that these tech stalwarts are gaining more market share by the day,” said Dan Ives, managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities. “It’s ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ for this group of tech companies and everyone else.” The results were strong despite increasing antitrust scrutiny from regulators. Last week, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit accusing Google of cementing the dominance of its search engine through anti-competitive agreements with device makers and mobile carriers. Facebook faces a possible antitrust case from the Federal Trade Commission. The companies’ advantages are becoming more pronounced in an economy starting to dig out from the coronavirus pandemic. On Thursday, the Commerce Department said US economic output grew 7.4% last quarter, the fastest pace on record, but remained below where it was in the last pre-pandemic quarter.

Big Tech continues its surge ahead of the rest of the economy

Alphabet Inc's&nbsp;Google&nbsp;said the US&nbsp;Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against the company was "deeply flawed" and that users would find it more difficult to access superior search tools and affordable smartphones if the government wins its case.

"American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want,"&nbsp;Google&nbsp;senior vice president Kent Walker said in a blog post on Tuesday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-336688" hreflang="en">US files antitrust lawsuit against Google</a>

The lawsuit by the Justice Department and 11 states alleges&nbsp;Google&nbsp;used its market power to fend off rivals, including through distribution agreements that gave its search engine prominent placement on phones and internet browsers.

Google&nbsp;says those agreements, in which it shares revenue from search ads with distributors such as iPhone maker Apple Inc, help subsidize phones.

Companies could carry other search engines, but users have repeatedly shown a preference for&nbsp;Google's search tools, Walker said. Consumers who prefer an alternative are able to switch the default search tool on iPhones and other devices, he said. But forcing device and browser makers to set "lower-quality search alternatives" as the default was not beneficial to consumers, Walker added.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/chinese-hackers-targeting-biden-and-trump-are-faking-mcafee-software-google-336251" hreflang="en">Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google</a>

He also described as incorrect the Justice Department's conclusion that topic-specific search tools such as travel services Kayak and Expedia or shopping giant Amazon.com Inc were not competitors to&nbsp;Google&nbsp;search.

Google&nbsp;contends the popularity of those narrow search tools lowers its market share than when counting only Microsoft Corp's Bing and other "general" search tools as competition.

Alphabet Inc's Google said the US Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against the company was "deeply flawed" and that users would find it more difficult to access superior search tools and affordable smartphones if the government wins its case.

Alphabet Inc's Google said the US Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against the company was "deeply flawed" and that users would find it more difficult to access superior search tools and affordable smartphones if the government wins its case. "American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want," Google senior vice president Kent Walker said in a blog post on Tuesday. Also read: US files antitrust lawsuit against Google The lawsuit by the Justice Department and 11 states alleges Google used its market power to fend off rivals, including through distribution agreements that gave its search engine prominent placement on phones and internet browsers. Google says those agreements, in which it shares revenue from search ads with distributors such as iPhone maker Apple Inc, help subsidize phones. Companies could carry other search engines, but users have repeatedly shown a preference for Google's search tools, Walker said. Consumers who prefer an alternative are able to switch the default search tool on iPhones and other devices, he said. But forcing device and browser makers to set "lower-quality search alternatives" as the default was not beneficial to consumers, Walker added. Also read: Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google He also described as incorrect the Justice Department's conclusion that topic-specific search tools such as travel services Kayak and Expedia or shopping giant Amazon.com Inc were not competitors to Google search. Google contends the popularity of those narrow search tools lowers its market share than when counting only Microsoft Corp's Bing and other "general" search tools as competition.

Google calls US Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit 'deeply flawed'

Japan is likely to join the United States and Europe to regulate the “Big Tech” companies.&nbsp;

Kazuyuki Furuya, chairman of Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) told Reuters on Monday that the country could also initiate a probe into mergers and dealings that involve Fitbit, a fitness tracker company.

If the scale of any merger is unprecedented, the country intends to launch investigations.

"If the size of any merger or business-tie up is big, we can launch an anti-monopoly investigation into the buyer's process of acquiring a start-up (like Fitbit)," he further told Reuters.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/india-news/twitter-issues-clarification-following-backlash-for-showing-jk-in-china-336376" hreflang="en">Twitter issues clarification following backlash for showing J&amp;K in China</a>

He added that Japan is closely observing similar moves in the world, especially Europe. ”We're closely watching developments including in Europe”, he added.

In August 2020, European Union regulators had initiated an investigation into a potential deal between Google and Fitbit. Alphabet’s Google was set to lock a $2.1 billion deal to counter Apple and Samsung in the wearable market.

After this move, the country will be able to effectively challenge market abuses by the four Big Tech companies - GAFA, or Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon which are currently under scrutiny in Europe and the United States.

Furuya further told Reuters that GAFA companies follow similar business practices globally, and called global coordination “crucial”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/chinese-hackers-targeting-biden-and-trump-are-faking-mcafee-software-google-336251" hreflang="en">Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google</a>

"This is an area I will push through aggressively. “We'll work closely with our US and European counterparts, and respond if to any moves that hamper competition”, he said.

Furuya took charge of the position in September, and also suggested that they would also be observing Japan’s phone market.

Japan is likely to join the United States and Europe to regulate the “Big Tech” companies. Kazuyuki Furuya, chairman of Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) told Reuters on Monday that the country could also initiate a probe into mergers and dealings that involve Fitbit, a fitness tracker company.

Japan is likely to join the United States and Europe to regulate the “Big Tech” companies. Kazuyuki Furuya, chairman of Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) told Reuters on Monday that the country could also initiate a probe into mergers and dealings that involve Fitbit, a fitness tracker company. If the scale of any merger is unprecedented, the country intends to launch investigations. "If the size of any merger or business-tie up is big, we can launch an anti-monopoly investigation into the buyer's process of acquiring a start-up (like Fitbit)," he further told Reuters. Also read: Twitter issues clarification following backlash for showing J&K in China He added that Japan is closely observing similar moves in the world, especially Europe. ”We're closely watching developments including in Europe”, he added. In August 2020, European Union regulators had initiated an investigation into a potential deal between Google and Fitbit. Alphabet’s Google was set to lock a $2.1 billion deal to counter Apple and Samsung in the wearable market. After this move, the country will be able to effectively challenge market abuses by the four Big Tech companies - GAFA, or Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon which are currently under scrutiny in Europe and the United States. Furuya further told Reuters that GAFA companies follow similar business practices globally, and called global coordination “crucial”. Also read: Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google "This is an area I will push through aggressively. “We'll work closely with our US and European counterparts, and respond if to any moves that hamper competition”, he said. Furuya took charge of the position in September, and also suggested that they would also be observing Japan’s phone market.

Japan likely to join US, Europe in regulation of Big Tech companies

NEW YORK — Facebook has just leased enough new office space in Manhattan to nearly triple its current local workforce, including at one of the city’s most iconic buildings, the 107-year-old former main post office complex near Pennsylvania Station.

Apple, which set up its first office in New York a decade ago, is expanding to another building in Manhattan. And Google and Amazon are stitching together corporate campuses in the city more quickly than anywhere else in the world. Amazon paid roughly $1 billion in March for the iconic Lord &amp; Taylor building on Fifth Avenue.

Despite a pandemic that has ravaged New York, hollowed out many of its office buildings and raised fundamental questions about its future, the four companies collectively known as Big Tech are all significantly expanding their footprint in the city, giving it a badly needed vote of confidence.

With fears that the virus could spike again in the colder months, many companies are grappling with how, when and even if office workers will come back to buildings in Manhattan. And the tech giants have not brought their workers back yet, either.

Even so, the giants have not only moved forward with previous growth plans, but have also increased their pace of hiring and office acquisition during the pandemic.

The industry’s embrace of New York City comes despite the tumultuous reception that Amazon received last year when it proposed building a sprawling headquarters in Queens. Amazon abandoned the plans in the face of political and community opposition, but now has acquired more than 2 million square feet of office space for corporate workers, as well as warehouses from Staten Island to Queens to the Bronx.

After Amazon bought the Lord &amp; Taylor building, it announced in August that 2,000 employees would eventually work there, increasing by half its current tech workforce of 4,000.

Amazon now has eight office properties in New York, most of which are clustered in Midtown. The company recently expanded outside Manhattan, leasing space on the Brooklyn waterfront for its Amazon Music team.

“We know that talent attracts talent, and we believe that the creative energy of cities like New York will continue to attract diverse professionals from around the world,” said Ardine Williams, Amazon’s vice president of workforce development.

Even with Big Tech’s expansion, the city continues to face a fundamental challenge: Most offices have been deserted since March, devastating the local economy and the ecosystem of transit, stores, restaurants and other business that depend on workers. Only about 12% of workers have returned to Manhattan offices managed by CBRE, a commercial real estate firm that manages 20 million square feet of office space in the city.

Many people do not want to go back to offices until there is a vaccine. Even after that, there are mounting questions about whether the pandemic has fundamentally tarnished the allure of the office towers of Midtown and Lower Manhattan.

What’s more, a recent uptick in new cases in parts of Brooklyn and Queens has raised fears that a second wave looms and that restrictions on daily life could be reimposed.

Collectively, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple have hired more than 2,600 employees in the city so far this year, bringing their total employment to over 22,000 people. Facebook alone has added 1,100 workers to bring its current workforce up to 4,000.

Apple, Amazon and Facebook have gobbled up more than 1.6 million square feet of office space since the start of the year, most of which was leased or bought during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, Google added about 1.7 million square feet of office space as part of a corporate campus rising along the Hudson River in Manhattan.

The companies now have enough new office space to hire another 15,000 employees. When those workers will arrive at the new offices remains uncertain; all four companies have allowed their employees to work remotely and some, including Facebook, foresee a future in which up to half its employees work from home.

Executives at the companies said their investments even during one of the city’s darkest periods reflect their belief that the features that set New York apart — its diversity, culture, regional transportation network and numerous colleges and universities — will keep luring people after the pandemic.

To a large extent, the companies are also wagering that current and future employees will be eager to return to shared workplaces that promote spontaneity and collaboration.

“The big takeaway here is that New York will always be a tech hub,” said William Floyd, director of external affairs for Google’s New York offices, which has about 9,000 workers, more than half of whom are engineers.

Google is on target to employ 14,000 people in the city in the coming years, fulfilling a 2018 pledge to double its New York City workforce. The company has pieced together a sizable corporate campus in and around the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan, including several properties that are under construction.

The tech sector first settled in New York more than two decades ago, a tiny player in the shadows of the city’s traditional powerhouse industries like finance, media, real estate and health care. Google opened its first outpost outside California, a sales office in Manhattan with a lone employee, in 2000.

But in recent years, New York has blossomed into a bona fide tech hub, an East Coast rival to Silicon Valley that has become a second home to tech behemoths but has also given rise to thousands of startups.

The larger companies have established a tech corridor on Manhattan’s West Side, stretching from West 34th Street in Midtown south to the World Trade Center area in Lower Manhattan.

The focus of the tech companies in New York has shifted from marketing and sales departments to teams that mirror those in Silicon Valley. They have recruited engineers and developers from local and regional universities and filled some roles with West Coast employees who want to decamp to New York City.

For every Big Tech company in the city, there are numerous smaller but still sizable firms, including Salesforce, LinkedIn, Spotify and ZocDoc. Microsoft, another tech giant, has a modest presence in offices near Times Square.

Before the pandemic, the city’s tech sector employed 150,100 people, and had added a total of 15,700 jobs in 2018 and 2019, according to the New York state comptroller’s office. Most of the new jobs were in fields like software, data processing and internet publishing.

The pace of hiring is expected to keep climbing.

In August, when Facebook grabbed all the office space at the James A. Farley Building near Pennsylvania Station, it cemented Manhattan’s West Side as its East Coast campus.

The company said it leased 730,000 square feet at the old post office in part because of its cavernous layout — a rarity among New York City buildings — which mimics the large open areas at its headquarters in Menlo Park, California. When a renovation is completed next year, the building will be filled with engineers.

“The floor plan will allow for multiple teams to be housed on those floors,” said Jamila Reeves, a company spokeswoman, “and we don’t necessarily have to break folks up.”

Around the corner from the Farley Building, Apple signed a lease for 220,000 square feet at 11 Penn Plaza, a 1923 art deco tower near Madison Square Garden.

Before the deal, Apple, which has said very little about its plans in the city, had not expanded beyond an office building on Fifth Avenue in the Flatiron neighborhood that it moved into in 2011.

Smaller tech companies have also kept adding to their payrolls right through the outbreak.

MongoDB, a cloud database platform whose headquarters are in Midtown Manhattan, has hired 97 employees since the beginning of the pandemic, bringing its total workforce in the city to 551.

The company, whose products are used by Verizon, eBay and Adobe among other companies, has more than 2,100 employees worldwide and is creating a hybrid work model to have employees work remotely some days and in the office on others.

“While there are questions about what the future of work post-COVID will look like, we plan to maintain office spaces in New York,” said Dev Ittycheria, the company’s chief executive. “We believe that being physically present with colleagues in an office can offer important opportunities for in-person interaction, collaboration, and connection that are important for the success of our company.”

One of the company’s newest hires, Farah Wahab, started in August as a product marketing manager after working for five years at tech companies in San Francisco.

Though San Francisco has a far larger tech scene, she said the city felt more insular compared with New York.

“I love S.F. but it can feel a bit like a tech-centric bubble isolated from the real world,” Wahab, 32, said. “Being around different industries and types of people, as well as greater access to the market, was important to me both personally and professionally.”

Kia D. Floyd, Facebook’s head of public policy for the east and Midwest regions, pointed out that the company set up shop in New York shortly before the 2008 Great Recession, another challenging period of uncertainty in the city.

“People fled the city then and didn’t think it would come back,” Floyd said. “But the city has grit and resilience and diversity, and it was always going to be inspirational for businesses like ours.” 
&nbsp;

NEW YORK — Facebook has just leased enough new office space in Manhattan to nearly triple its current local workforce, including at one of the city’s most iconic buildings, the 107-year-old former main post office complex near Pennsylvania Station.

NEW YORK — Facebook has just leased enough new office space in Manhattan to nearly triple its current local workforce, including at one of the city’s most iconic buildings, the 107-year-old former main post office complex near Pennsylvania Station. Apple, which set up its first office in New York a decade ago, is expanding to another building in Manhattan. And Google and Amazon are stitching together corporate campuses in the city more quickly than anywhere else in the world. Amazon paid roughly $1 billion in March for the iconic Lord & Taylor building on Fifth Avenue. Despite a pandemic that has ravaged New York, hollowed out many of its office buildings and raised fundamental questions about its future, the four companies collectively known as Big Tech are all significantly expanding their footprint in the city, giving it a badly needed vote of confidence. With fears that the virus could spike again in the colder months, many companies are grappling with how, when and even if office workers will come back to buildings in Manhattan. And the tech giants have not brought their workers back yet, either. Even so, the giants have not only moved forward with previous growth plans, but have also increased their pace of hiring and office acquisition during the pandemic. The industry’s embrace of New York City comes despite the tumultuous reception that Amazon received last year when it proposed building a sprawling headquarters in Queens. Amazon abandoned the plans in the face of political and community opposition, but now has acquired more than 2 million square feet of office space for corporate workers, as well as warehouses from Staten Island to Queens to the Bronx. After Amazon bought the Lord & Taylor building, it announced in August that 2,000 employees would eventually work there, increasing by half its current tech workforce of 4,000. Amazon now has eight office properties in New York, most of which are clustered in Midtown. The company recently expanded outside Manhattan, leasing space on the Brooklyn waterfront for its Amazon Music team. “We know that talent attracts talent, and we believe that the creative energy of cities like New York will continue to attract diverse professionals from around the world,” said Ardine Williams, Amazon’s vice president of workforce development. Even with Big Tech’s expansion, the city continues to face a fundamental challenge: Most offices have been deserted since March, devastating the local economy and the ecosystem of transit, stores, restaurants and other business that depend on workers. Only about 12% of workers have returned to Manhattan offices managed by CBRE, a commercial real estate firm that manages 20 million square feet of office space in the city. Many people do not want to go back to offices until there is a vaccine. Even after that, there are mounting questions about whether the pandemic has fundamentally tarnished the allure of the office towers of Midtown and Lower Manhattan. What’s more, a recent uptick in new cases in parts of Brooklyn and Queens has raised fears that a second wave looms and that restrictions on daily life could be reimposed. Collectively, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple have hired more than 2,600 employees in the city so far this year, bringing their total employment to over 22,000 people. Facebook alone has added 1,100 workers to bring its current workforce up to 4,000. Apple, Amazon and Facebook have gobbled up more than 1.6 million square feet of office space since the start of the year, most of which was leased or bought during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, Google added about 1.7 million square feet of office space as part of a corporate campus rising along the Hudson River in Manhattan. The companies now have enough new office space to hire another 15,000 employees. When those workers will arrive at the new offices remains uncertain; all four companies have allowed their employees to work remotely and some, including Facebook, foresee a future in which up to half its employees work from home. Executives at the companies said their investments even during one of the city’s darkest periods reflect their belief that the features that set New York apart — its diversity, culture, regional transportation network and numerous colleges and universities — will keep luring people after the pandemic. To a large extent, the companies are also wagering that current and future employees will be eager to return to shared workplaces that promote spontaneity and collaboration. “The big takeaway here is that New York will always be a tech hub,” said William Floyd, director of external affairs for Google’s New York offices, which has about 9,000 workers, more than half of whom are engineers. Google is on target to employ 14,000 people in the city in the coming years, fulfilling a 2018 pledge to double its New York City workforce. The company has pieced together a sizable corporate campus in and around the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan, including several properties that are under construction. The tech sector first settled in New York more than two decades ago, a tiny player in the shadows of the city’s traditional powerhouse industries like finance, media, real estate and health care. Google opened its first outpost outside California, a sales office in Manhattan with a lone employee, in 2000. But in recent years, New York has blossomed into a bona fide tech hub, an East Coast rival to Silicon Valley that has become a second home to tech behemoths but has also given rise to thousands of startups. The larger companies have established a tech corridor on Manhattan’s West Side, stretching from West 34th Street in Midtown south to the World Trade Center area in Lower Manhattan. The focus of the tech companies in New York has shifted from marketing and sales departments to teams that mirror those in Silicon Valley. They have recruited engineers and developers from local and regional universities and filled some roles with West Coast employees who want to decamp to New York City. For every Big Tech company in the city, there are numerous smaller but still sizable firms, including Salesforce, LinkedIn, Spotify and ZocDoc. Microsoft, another tech giant, has a modest presence in offices near Times Square. Before the pandemic, the city’s tech sector employed 150,100 people, and had added a total of 15,700 jobs in 2018 and 2019, according to the New York state comptroller’s office. Most of the new jobs were in fields like software, data processing and internet publishing. The pace of hiring is expected to keep climbing. In August, when Facebook grabbed all the office space at the James A. Farley Building near Pennsylvania Station, it cemented Manhattan’s West Side as its East Coast campus. The company said it leased 730,000 square feet at the old post office in part because of its cavernous layout — a rarity among New York City buildings — which mimics the large open areas at its headquarters in Menlo Park, California. When a renovation is completed next year, the building will be filled with engineers. “The floor plan will allow for multiple teams to be housed on those floors,” said Jamila Reeves, a company spokeswoman, “and we don’t necessarily have to break folks up.” Around the corner from the Farley Building, Apple signed a lease for 220,000 square feet at 11 Penn Plaza, a 1923 art deco tower near Madison Square Garden. Before the deal, Apple, which has said very little about its plans in the city, had not expanded beyond an office building on Fifth Avenue in the Flatiron neighborhood that it moved into in 2011. Smaller tech companies have also kept adding to their payrolls right through the outbreak. MongoDB, a cloud database platform whose headquarters are in Midtown Manhattan, has hired 97 employees since the beginning of the pandemic, bringing its total workforce in the city to 551. The company, whose products are used by Verizon, eBay and Adobe among other companies, has more than 2,100 employees worldwide and is creating a hybrid work model to have employees work remotely some days and in the office on others. “While there are questions about what the future of work post-COVID will look like, we plan to maintain office spaces in New York,” said Dev Ittycheria, the company’s chief executive. “We believe that being physically present with colleagues in an office can offer important opportunities for in-person interaction, collaboration, and connection that are important for the success of our company.” One of the company’s newest hires, Farah Wahab, started in August as a product marketing manager after working for five years at tech companies in San Francisco. Though San Francisco has a far larger tech scene, she said the city felt more insular compared with New York. “I love S.F. but it can feel a bit like a tech-centric bubble isolated from the real world,” Wahab, 32, said. “Being around different industries and types of people, as well as greater access to the market, was important to me both personally and professionally.” Kia D. Floyd, Facebook’s head of public policy for the east and Midwest regions, pointed out that the company set up shop in New York shortly before the 2008 Great Recession, another challenging period of uncertainty in the city. “People fled the city then and didn’t think it would come back,” Floyd said. “But the city has grit and resilience and diversity, and it was always going to be inspirational for businesses like ours.”

Manhattan emptied out during the pandemic. But Big Tech is moving in

The allegations of spying by former Twitter employees for Saudi Arabia underscore the risks for Silicon Valley firms holding sensitive data which make the platforms ripe for espionage.

The two Saudis and one US citizen allegedly worked together to unmask the ownership details behind dissident Twitter accounts on behalf of the Riyadh government and royal family, according to a federal indictment.

Analysts say the incident shows how massive databases held by Silicon Valley giants can be juicy targets for intelligence agencies, which can often apply pressure to company insiders.

"The Twitter case shows how data is not only an asset but a liability for companies," said Adrian Shahbaz, research director for technology and democracy at the human rights group Freedom House.

"For companies collecting massive amounts of data, the challenge is how to keep it secure not only from hackers, but from rogue employees."

Shahbaz said platforms such as Twitter and Facebook remain important tools for human rights activists, but that users should be aware of potential for data leaks, both in their countries, and from insiders.

"It's been alarming to see how governments using tactics to exploit the inherent weaknesses of the internet... go after people expressing dissent," he said.

"It's a constant cat-and-mouse game between users and very well-resourced governments."

Bruce Schneier, a security researcher and fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet &amp; Society, said it is not surprising to see governments targeting databases of tech platforms.

"We all assume it happens a lot. But this (prosecution) rarely comes up," Schneier said.

No match for Russia

Schneier said there have long been fears about Chinese or Russian insiders pressured to introduce vulnerabilities in major software platforms, and that companies may be ill-equipped to thwart those efforts.

"The government of Russia versus Twitter is not a fair fight," he said. "It's hard to blame tech companies."

Because major tech firms have engineers from all over the world, Schneier said it enables intelligence services to seek out and pressure their ex-pats for espionage purposes.

The case highlights the potential for insider threats, said James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"Insider threats go back to biblical times," he said, noting that the suspects were probably caught because they "did a terrible job of covering their tracks."

Background checks enough?

According to an indictment unsealed Wednesday, US citizen Ahmad Abouammo and Saudi national Ali Alzabarah were recruited in 2014-2015 to use their positions in Twitter to gain access to private information related to accounts of critics of Riyadh.

Ahmed Almutairi, a marketing official with ties to the royal family, was a critical go-between who arranged contacts, prosecutors said.

Twitter said in a statement it restricts access to sensitive account information "to a limited group of trained and vetted employees."

But John Dickson, a former US air force information warfare officer who is now with the security consultancy Denim Group, said private companies, even in Silicon Valley, are not equipped to for background checks needed to find potential spies.

"Most employers do cursory background checks for the most obvious stuff such as criminal records or bankruptcy," he said.

"None of them does any semblance of a background check on nation-state threats."

Dickson said it remains unclear if the tech platforms are cognizant of the sensitivity of the data they hold, and the draw of that information for intelligence services.

"They are still acting as social media companies," he said.

"Their default is to get as many connections as possible, and the network effect enhances the platform."

Shahbaz said the latest case illustrates a need for regulations to require tech platforms to limit how much data they collect and maintain.

"There might be a role for government to play in terms of data privacy legislation," he said.

"There's a case for collecting the bare minimum of data from users and allowing users to opt out" of certain kinds of data collection.

He said companies should also be required to inform victims if their data has been compromised "so they can take measures to protect themselves."

The allegations of spying by former Twitter employees for Saudi Arabia underscore the risks for Silicon Valley firms holding sensitive data which make the platforms ripe for espionage.

The allegations of spying by former Twitter employees for Saudi Arabia underscore the risks for Silicon Valley firms holding sensitive data which make the platforms ripe for espionage. The two Saudis and one US citizen allegedly worked together to unmask the ownership details behind dissident Twitter accounts on behalf of the Riyadh government and royal family, according to a federal indictment. Analysts say the incident shows how massive databases held by Silicon Valley giants can be juicy targets for intelligence agencies, which can often apply pressure to company insiders. "The Twitter case shows how data is not only an asset but a liability for companies," said Adrian Shahbaz, research director for technology and democracy at the human rights group Freedom House. "For companies collecting massive amounts of data, the challenge is how to keep it secure not only from hackers, but from rogue employees." Shahbaz said platforms such as Twitter and Facebook remain important tools for human rights activists, but that users should be aware of potential for data leaks, both in their countries, and from insiders. "It's been alarming to see how governments using tactics to exploit the inherent weaknesses of the internet... go after people expressing dissent," he said. "It's a constant cat-and-mouse game between users and very well-resourced governments." Bruce Schneier, a security researcher and fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, said it is not surprising to see governments targeting databases of tech platforms. "We all assume it happens a lot. But this (prosecution) rarely comes up," Schneier said. No match for Russia Schneier said there have long been fears about Chinese or Russian insiders pressured to introduce vulnerabilities in major software platforms, and that companies may be ill-equipped to thwart those efforts. "The government of Russia versus Twitter is not a fair fight," he said. "It's hard to blame tech companies." Because major tech firms have engineers from all over the world, Schneier said it enables intelligence services to seek out and pressure their ex-pats for espionage purposes. The case highlights the potential for insider threats, said James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "Insider threats go back to biblical times," he said, noting that the suspects were probably caught because they "did a terrible job of covering their tracks." Background checks enough? According to an indictment unsealed Wednesday, US citizen Ahmad Abouammo and Saudi national Ali Alzabarah were recruited in 2014-2015 to use their positions in Twitter to gain access to private information related to accounts of critics of Riyadh. Ahmed Almutairi, a marketing official with ties to the royal family, was a critical go-between who arranged contacts, prosecutors said. Twitter said in a statement it restricts access to sensitive account information "to a limited group of trained and vetted employees." But John Dickson, a former US air force information warfare officer who is now with the security consultancy Denim Group, said private companies, even in Silicon Valley, are not equipped to for background checks needed to find potential spies. "Most employers do cursory background checks for the most obvious stuff such as criminal records or bankruptcy," he said. "None of them does any semblance of a background check on nation-state threats." Dickson said it remains unclear if the tech platforms are cognizant of the sensitivity of the data they hold, and the draw of that information for intelligence services. "They are still acting as social media companies," he said. "Their default is to get as many connections as possible, and the network effect enhances the platform." Shahbaz said the latest case illustrates a need for regulations to require tech platforms to limit how much data they collect and maintain. "There might be a role for government to play in terms of data privacy legislation," he said. "There's a case for collecting the bare minimum of data from users and allowing users to opt out" of certain kinds of data collection. He said companies should also be required to inform victims if their data has been compromised "so they can take measures to protect themselves."

Twitter spy case highlights risks for big tech platforms

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security.

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have argued in favour of either breaking up or tightening regulation of firms such as Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Amazon.com Inc.

Republican President Donald Trump's administration has also stepped up its scrutiny, announcing a wide-ranging investigation in July into whether major digital tech companies engaged in anti-competitive practices.

Trump's Democratic challengers also criticise online platforms for allowing politicians to make false claims in advertising ahead of the election next November.

Social media platforms are under particular scrutiny after US&nbsp;intelligence agencies said Russia used them to wage an influence operation to interfere with the 2016 election - a claim Moscow has denied.

Here are some of the candidates' positions on Big Tech.

President Trump

Trump, whose social media use and digital advertising campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, in September attacked the "immense power" of social media giants in his address to the United Nations.

Trump has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, as Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have, but said "obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly," when asked about major tech companies in a June interview with CNBC.

Trump and other Republicans have also criticized social media companies, without evidence, for alleged political bias.

The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote an opinion piece for The Hill political website in September entitled "Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech."

Silicon Valley firms have also been at odds with the Trump administration over policies such as its repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules and the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on their supply chains.

Joe Biden

Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has taken a more moderate stance than his progressive rivals on the issue of big tech company break-ups.

In a May interview with the Associated Press, he said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was "something we should take a really hard look at" but that it was "premature" to make a final judgment.

The campaign told Reuters that, as president, Biden would aggressively use "all the tools available - including utilizing antitrust measures" to ensure corporations act responsibly.

He did not speak up during a discussion of the issue at the most recent Democratic debate in October.

Biden has criticized e-commerce giant Amazon's $0 federal tax bill in 2018.

"I have nothing against Amazon, but no company pulling in billions of dollars of profits should pay a lower tax rate than firefighters and teachers. We need to reward work, not just wealth," he said in a tweet in June.

His campaign also clashed with Facebook, Twitter and Google over their political ad policies after they refused to take down a Trump ad that the Biden team said contained false claims about his son Hunter's dealings with Ukraine.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition.

She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms - which she would designate as "platform utilities" -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time.

Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example.

She also said she would nominate regulators to unwind anti-competitive mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, and Amazon's deal for Whole Foods.

Warren in October challenged Facebook's policy of exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking by running ads containing the false claim that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was endorsing Trump's re-election bid.

The senator from Massachusetts has also said that she would reject campaign donations over $200 from executives of big tech firms.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders, a US senator from Vermont who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the break-up of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon.

His administration would "absolutely" try to split apart the companies, Sanders said at a Washington Post event in July.

He has said that he will have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration. His broad plan to reshape corporate America would also mandate all large companies to be owned partly by their workers.

Asked how he differentiates himself from Warren on major issues, Sanders told ABC in October: "Elizabeth considers herself - if I got the quote correctly - to be a capitalist to her bones. I don't."

Sanders has been vocal in his attacks on Amazon over issues such as its tax contributions and working conditions at its warehouses. In 2018, he introduced a 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate, in a reference to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which would make large corporations either pay their workers more or pay the government for public benefits that their workers receive.

Pete Buttigieg

In general, Pete Buttigieg, who became Facebook's 287th user shortly after it was launched in 2004 at Harvard University, where he was a student, has been more reluctant to slam the tech giants than some other candidates.

The mayor from South Bend, Indiana, said that the break-up of big tech companies is a "remedy that should be on the table," but also said it was not a politician's place to designate which companies should be broken up.

He has said that the FTC should be empowered to prevent and sometimes reverse mergers, but argued that large tech companies should be scrutinized for their actions rather than their size. He says concerns over monopolies and concerns over data security or privacy should not be conflated.

He is in favour of having legislation to protect individual data rights at a national level, including the right to be forgotten - which would give citizens the power to demand that online platforms delete data about them, as is the case in Europe.

Kamala Harris

Senator Harris of California, the home of Silicon Valley, has said that Facebook has not been sufficiently regulated. She has not called outright for the break-up of big tech firms but said it should be "seriously" considered.

During the campaign, Harris touted her experience protecting consumers' online privacy while she was state attorney general.

In Congress, Harris, along with fellow candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar, introduced the bipartisan ENOUGH Act in 2017 to protect against online exploitation of private images. Harris recently called on Twitter to suspend Trump's Twitter account, saying his tweets threaten violence. In response, the company said that Trump's tweets did not violate its policies.

Amy Klobuchar

The Minnesota senator has made oversight of big technology companies one of her major issues in Congress and argued for data privacy laws and net neutrality safeguards as priorities at her campaign launch in February. Klobuchar has called for tighter regulation of tech giants and suggested that companies who profit from users' data could be taxed.

She has not endorsed Warren's plan for their break-up, saying that she would first want investigations. Her plan for her first 100 days in office includes an "aggressive retrospective review of mergers," which she said she would pay for with an extra merger fee on "megamergers."

She is also one of the authors of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would require social media platforms to disclose the purchaser of a political ad, as is required for television and print ads.

Andrew Yang

Yang, the former CEO of a start-up, has benefited from a surge of grassroots supporters on social media who style themselves as the #yanggang.

Although the technology entrepreneur said "we would be well served" if big tech companies were to break themselves up, he is more focused on dealing with the impact of automation on American jobs and on regulating artificial intelligence. Yang has also emphasized the negative effects of tech on mental health and said he would create a Department of Attention Economy, ideally led by tech ethics advocate Tristan Harris, to look at how to responsibly design and use apps and devices.

He has also called for people to receive a share of the economic value generated from their data.

Cory Booker

New Jersey Senator Booker said that Warren's call to break up the tech giants was "more like a Donald Trump thing to say" and has instead argued that stronger antitrust laws need to be enforced.

When questioned at the October Democratic debate on the issue, Booker advocated reforms to stop tech companies being used "to undermine our democracy" around elections.

He talked broadly about antitrust, "from pharma to farms," but did not single out tech companies.

A Stanford University graduate who co-founded his own social media start-up WayWire, Booker has historically received donations from major Silicon Valley names such as Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO also donated $100 million to Newark schools when Booker was mayor of the New Jersey city.

Beto O' Rourke

O'Rourke, a former US representative from Texas, wants to see Big Tech regulated rather than broken up. He has said he does not think it is the role of a president to designate which companies should be dismantled.

O'Rourke's campaign told Reuters he would stand up for small business by preventing online platform owners from promoting their own content and products over that of competitors. He also plans to create a new digital markets regulator to create and enforce rules on issues such as privacy and data mobility.

O’Rourke, who as a teenager was part of an influential hacking group, has also said he thinks social media companies should be treated as publishers.

He wants to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally provides immunity to online platforms for content posted by users, to make social media companies more accountable for the amplification of hate speech and domestic terrorism on their platforms.

His campaign recently urged Facebook, Twitter and Google to do more to combat online disinformation, after the campaign encountered the spread of a false claim about a gunman in a mass shooting.

Julian Castro

Castro, who was secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has said it is worth considering proposals to break up the big tech companies and said during the recent Democratic debate that the US&nbsp;needs to take a stronger stance in cracking down on monopolistic trade practices.

In the October debate, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, also singled out Amazon by name for helping to "put small businesses out of business" and for "shortchanging a lot of its workers."

Tulsi Gabbard

Gabbard, a US representative from Hawaii, has called for the break-up of big tech companies and praised Warren's plan.

In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google accusing the company of discrimination when it temporarily suspended her ad account after the first Democratic debate. Google said the account had been automatically flagged for unusual activity, without specifying exactly what the issue was.

Gabbard said that Google's actions reflected "how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values."

Tom Steyer

California billionaire Steyer has said he is running for president to remove the influence of corporate money from politics.

In the October debate, he said that monopolies either have to be dismantled or regulated, but that to win against Trump, Democrats would have to "show the American people that we don't just know how to tax and have programs to break up companies."

Instead, he said, Democrats must harness the innovation and competition of the private sector.

Steyer's campaign has been noted for its massive ad spending which helped push him to the debate stage, including more than $6 million in Facebook ads, according to Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have argued in favour of either breaking up or tightening regulation of firms such as Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Amazon.com Inc. Republican President Donald Trump's administration has also stepped up its scrutiny, announcing a wide-ranging investigation in July into whether major digital tech companies engaged in anti-competitive practices. Trump's Democratic challengers also criticise online platforms for allowing politicians to make false claims in advertising ahead of the election next November. Social media platforms are under particular scrutiny after US intelligence agencies said Russia used them to wage an influence operation to interfere with the 2016 election - a claim Moscow has denied. Here are some of the candidates' positions on Big Tech. President Trump Trump, whose social media use and digital advertising campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, in September attacked the "immense power" of social media giants in his address to the United Nations. Trump has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, as Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have, but said "obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly," when asked about major tech companies in a June interview with CNBC. Trump and other Republicans have also criticized social media companies, without evidence, for alleged political bias. The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote an opinion piece for The Hill political website in September entitled "Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech." Silicon Valley firms have also been at odds with the Trump administration over policies such as its repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules and the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on their supply chains. Joe Biden Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has taken a more moderate stance than his progressive rivals on the issue of big tech company break-ups. In a May interview with the Associated Press, he said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was "something we should take a really hard look at" but that it was "premature" to make a final judgment. The campaign told Reuters that, as president, Biden would aggressively use "all the tools available - including utilizing antitrust measures" to ensure corporations act responsibly. He did not speak up during a discussion of the issue at the most recent Democratic debate in October. Biden has criticized e-commerce giant Amazon's $0 federal tax bill in 2018. "I have nothing against Amazon, but no company pulling in billions of dollars of profits should pay a lower tax rate than firefighters and teachers. We need to reward work, not just wealth," he said in a tweet in June. His campaign also clashed with Facebook, Twitter and Google over their political ad policies after they refused to take down a Trump ad that the Biden team said contained false claims about his son Hunter's dealings with Ukraine. Elizabeth Warren Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition. She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms - which she would designate as "platform utilities" -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time. Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example. She also said she would nominate regulators to unwind anti-competitive mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, and Amazon's deal for Whole Foods. Warren in October challenged Facebook's policy of exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking by running ads containing the false claim that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was endorsing Trump's re-election bid. The senator from Massachusetts has also said that she would reject campaign donations over $200 from executives of big tech firms. Bernie Sanders Sanders, a US senator from Vermont who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the break-up of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon. His administration would "absolutely" try to split apart the companies, Sanders said at a Washington Post event in July. He has said that he will have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration. His broad plan to reshape corporate America would also mandate all large companies to be owned partly by their workers. Asked how he differentiates himself from Warren on major issues, Sanders told ABC in October: "Elizabeth considers herself - if I got the quote correctly - to be a capitalist to her bones. I don't." Sanders has been vocal in his attacks on Amazon over issues such as its tax contributions and working conditions at its warehouses. In 2018, he introduced a 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate, in a reference to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which would make large corporations either pay their workers more or pay the government for public benefits that their workers receive. Pete Buttigieg In general, Pete Buttigieg, who became Facebook's 287th user shortly after it was launched in 2004 at Harvard University, where he was a student, has been more reluctant to slam the tech giants than some other candidates. The mayor from South Bend, Indiana, said that the break-up of big tech companies is a "remedy that should be on the table," but also said it was not a politician's place to designate which companies should be broken up. He has said that the FTC should be empowered to prevent and sometimes reverse mergers, but argued that large tech companies should be scrutinized for their actions rather than their size. He says concerns over monopolies and concerns over data security or privacy should not be conflated. He is in favour of having legislation to protect individual data rights at a national level, including the right to be forgotten - which would give citizens the power to demand that online platforms delete data about them, as is the case in Europe. Kamala Harris Senator Harris of California, the home of Silicon Valley, has said that Facebook has not been sufficiently regulated. She has not called outright for the break-up of big tech firms but said it should be "seriously" considered. During the campaign, Harris touted her experience protecting consumers' online privacy while she was state attorney general. In Congress, Harris, along with fellow candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar, introduced the bipartisan ENOUGH Act in 2017 to protect against online exploitation of private images. Harris recently called on Twitter to suspend Trump's Twitter account, saying his tweets threaten violence. In response, the company said that Trump's tweets did not violate its policies. Amy Klobuchar The Minnesota senator has made oversight of big technology companies one of her major issues in Congress and argued for data privacy laws and net neutrality safeguards as priorities at her campaign launch in February. Klobuchar has called for tighter regulation of tech giants and suggested that companies who profit from users' data could be taxed. She has not endorsed Warren's plan for their break-up, saying that she would first want investigations. Her plan for her first 100 days in office includes an "aggressive retrospective review of mergers," which she said she would pay for with an extra merger fee on "megamergers." She is also one of the authors of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would require social media platforms to disclose the purchaser of a political ad, as is required for television and print ads. Andrew Yang Yang, the former CEO of a start-up, has benefited from a surge of grassroots supporters on social media who style themselves as the #yanggang. Although the technology entrepreneur said "we would be well served" if big tech companies were to break themselves up, he is more focused on dealing with the impact of automation on American jobs and on regulating artificial intelligence. Yang has also emphasized the negative effects of tech on mental health and said he would create a Department of Attention Economy, ideally led by tech ethics advocate Tristan Harris, to look at how to responsibly design and use apps and devices. He has also called for people to receive a share of the economic value generated from their data. Cory Booker New Jersey Senator Booker said that Warren's call to break up the tech giants was "more like a Donald Trump thing to say" and has instead argued that stronger antitrust laws need to be enforced. When questioned at the October Democratic debate on the issue, Booker advocated reforms to stop tech companies being used "to undermine our democracy" around elections. He talked broadly about antitrust, "from pharma to farms," but did not single out tech companies. A Stanford University graduate who co-founded his own social media start-up WayWire, Booker has historically received donations from major Silicon Valley names such as Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO also donated $100 million to Newark schools when Booker was mayor of the New Jersey city. Beto O' Rourke O'Rourke, a former US representative from Texas, wants to see Big Tech regulated rather than broken up. He has said he does not think it is the role of a president to designate which companies should be dismantled. O'Rourke's campaign told Reuters he would stand up for small business by preventing online platform owners from promoting their own content and products over that of competitors. He also plans to create a new digital markets regulator to create and enforce rules on issues such as privacy and data mobility. O’Rourke, who as a teenager was part of an influential hacking group, has also said he thinks social media companies should be treated as publishers. He wants to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally provides immunity to online platforms for content posted by users, to make social media companies more accountable for the amplification of hate speech and domestic terrorism on their platforms. His campaign recently urged Facebook, Twitter and Google to do more to combat online disinformation, after the campaign encountered the spread of a false claim about a gunman in a mass shooting. Julian Castro Castro, who was secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has said it is worth considering proposals to break up the big tech companies and said during the recent Democratic debate that the US needs to take a stronger stance in cracking down on monopolistic trade practices. In the October debate, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, also singled out Amazon by name for helping to "put small businesses out of business" and for "shortchanging a lot of its workers." Tulsi Gabbard Gabbard, a US representative from Hawaii, has called for the break-up of big tech companies and praised Warren's plan. In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google accusing the company of discrimination when it temporarily suspended her ad account after the first Democratic debate. Google said the account had been automatically flagged for unusual activity, without specifying exactly what the issue was. Gabbard said that Google's actions reflected "how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values." Tom Steyer California billionaire Steyer has said he is running for president to remove the influence of corporate money from politics. In the October debate, he said that monopolies either have to be dismantled or regulated, but that to win against Trump, Democrats would have to "show the American people that we don't just know how to tax and have programs to break up companies." Instead, he said, Democrats must harness the innovation and competition of the private sector. Steyer's campaign has been noted for its massive ad spending which helped push him to the debate stage, including more than $6 million in Facebook ads, according to Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.

Where US presidential candidates stand on breaking up Big Tech

A coalition of US states unveiled on Friday an antitrust investigation of Facebook, the first of what is expected to be a wave of action against dominant technology firms.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced the action on behalf of seven other states and the District of Columbia to probe "whether Facebook has stifled competition and put users at risk."

The case may be the first in a series of antitrust actions against Big Tech firms and highlights growing "techlash," based on worries about platforms that control the flow of online information and dominate key economic sectors.

"We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook's actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers' choices, or increased the price of advertising," James said.

Joining the action were attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee, said, James.

Earlier this year the US Justice Department said it would launch a "review" of major online platforms to determine if they have stifled innovation or reduced competition.

It was not immediately clear if the states would be working in coordination with federal officials.

'Rising fears'

Facebook offered no immediate comment, but in the past, it has claimed it is not a monopoly and that consumers have many choices for how to connect with people online.

The new probe "shows how unease with large tech companies is spreading beyond Congress and the federal government agencies to the states," said Michael Carrier, professor of antitrust law at Rutgers University.

"With each passing day, there are greater fears about these companies controlling our online lives."

Yet the legal basis for an antitrust action remains unclear, said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University.

"It remains to be seen if the (attorneys general) has any merit to their complaints or if they will be conducting a fishing expedition hoping to find some damning evidence," Goldman said.

"Companies as large as Google or Facebook probably have minor problematic practices the AGs could target, but I'm still waiting for any evidence that would support more structural challenges to the internet giants' practices."

'More on Monday'

A separate coalition of states was set to launch another antitrust initiative, with Google reportedly a target.

The office of the Texas attorney general scheduled an event Monday in Washington with a "broad coalition of states" to unveil a probe into "whether large tech companies have engaged in anticompetitive behaviour that stifled competition, restricted access, and harmed consumers."

Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said the company's services "help people every day, create more choice for consumers, and support thousands of jobs and small businesses across the country" and pledged to "work constructively with regulators."

'What's the remedy?'

Maurice Stucke, a University of Tennessee law professor, said he expects one of the areas being investigated will be online advertising markets, which are dominated by Google and Facebook.

"This is a great area to look at because the market has been criticized as being opaque," Stucke said.

Stucke said the investigations may go further by looking at how tech platforms control data, potentially examining "the intersection between competition law and privacy."

Amazon and Apple may also be in the crosshairs. Critics have complained that Amazon wields too much power in online retail and that Apple may disadvantage rivals offering services in its app store.

In the European Union, Google has faced a series of antitrust actions and Amazon is now being targeted by enforcers.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has made a breakup of the big tech firms a part of her campaign platform.

But some analysts say the case against the tech firms faces challenges because the companies have in many cases provided services for free and brought prices down, making it hard to prove they harmed "consumer welfare," a longstanding judicial precedent.

Jessica Melugin of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the state officials are stretching the limits of antitrust.

"This sort of high-profile activism may benefit state AGs' political ambitions, but impose harmful costs on consumers, businesses, and the economy," she said in a statement.

But Stucke said it would be wrong to view antitrust law as solely focused on consumer prices, and that it may be applied to questions of competition and innovation.

The probes could end up with a variety of outcomes including fines, restrictions on conduct or a breakup, Stucke maintained.

"You'd have to show how the remedy would address the concerns," he said.

A coalition of US states unveiled on Friday an antitrust investigation of Facebook, the first of what is expected to be a wave of action against dominant technology firms.

A coalition of US states unveiled on Friday an antitrust investigation of Facebook, the first of what is expected to be a wave of action against dominant technology firms. New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced the action on behalf of seven other states and the District of Columbia to probe "whether Facebook has stifled competition and put users at risk." The case may be the first in a series of antitrust actions against Big Tech firms and highlights growing "techlash," based on worries about platforms that control the flow of online information and dominate key economic sectors. "We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook's actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers' choices, or increased the price of advertising," James said. Joining the action were attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee, said, James. Earlier this year the US Justice Department said it would launch a "review" of major online platforms to determine if they have stifled innovation or reduced competition. It was not immediately clear if the states would be working in coordination with federal officials. 'Rising fears' Facebook offered no immediate comment, but in the past, it has claimed it is not a monopoly and that consumers have many choices for how to connect with people online. The new probe "shows how unease with large tech companies is spreading beyond Congress and the federal government agencies to the states," said Michael Carrier, professor of antitrust law at Rutgers University. "With each passing day, there are greater fears about these companies controlling our online lives." Yet the legal basis for an antitrust action remains unclear, said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. "It remains to be seen if the (attorneys general) has any merit to their complaints or if they will be conducting a fishing expedition hoping to find some damning evidence," Goldman said. "Companies as large as Google or Facebook probably have minor problematic practices the AGs could target, but I'm still waiting for any evidence that would support more structural challenges to the internet giants' practices." 'More on Monday' A separate coalition of states was set to launch another antitrust initiative, with Google reportedly a target. The office of the Texas attorney general scheduled an event Monday in Washington with a "broad coalition of states" to unveil a probe into "whether large tech companies have engaged in anticompetitive behaviour that stifled competition, restricted access, and harmed consumers." Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said the company's services "help people every day, create more choice for consumers, and support thousands of jobs and small businesses across the country" and pledged to "work constructively with regulators." 'What's the remedy?' Maurice Stucke, a University of Tennessee law professor, said he expects one of the areas being investigated will be online advertising markets, which are dominated by Google and Facebook. "This is a great area to look at because the market has been criticized as being opaque," Stucke said. Stucke said the investigations may go further by looking at how tech platforms control data, potentially examining "the intersection between competition law and privacy." Amazon and Apple may also be in the crosshairs. Critics have complained that Amazon wields too much power in online retail and that Apple may disadvantage rivals offering services in its app store. In the European Union, Google has faced a series of antitrust actions and Amazon is now being targeted by enforcers. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has made a breakup of the big tech firms a part of her campaign platform. But some analysts say the case against the tech firms faces challenges because the companies have in many cases provided services for free and brought prices down, making it hard to prove they harmed "consumer welfare," a longstanding judicial precedent. Jessica Melugin of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the state officials are stretching the limits of antitrust. "This sort of high-profile activism may benefit state AGs' political ambitions, but impose harmful costs on consumers, businesses, and the economy," she said in a statement. But Stucke said it would be wrong to view antitrust law as solely focused on consumer prices, and that it may be applied to questions of competition and innovation. The probes could end up with a variety of outcomes including fines, restrictions on conduct or a breakup, Stucke maintained. "You'd have to show how the remedy would address the concerns," he said.

Antitrust probe of Facebook may be first step against Big Tech

The US Department of Justice has asked Google to provide records on past investigations, as part of its extensive probe of tech giants over possible anti-competitive practices, the internet titan said Friday.&nbsp;

Washington has not named the companies it has targeted in its probe&nbsp;which began in July but it appears directed at the likes of dominant tech players such as Google, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/antitrust-probe-of-facebook-may-be-first-step-against-big-tech-248217">Facebook</a>, Twitter and Amazon.

"We have answered many questions on these issues over many years, in the United States as well as overseas, across many aspects of our business, so this is not new for us," Kent Walker, Google's senior vice president of global affairs, said in a blog post.

"The DOJ (Department of Justice) has asked us to provide information about these past investigations, and we expect state attorneys general will ask similar questions," Walker said, confirming rumors in the US media that a coalition of US states would soon launch an antitrust investigation of the group.

"We have always worked constructively with regulators and we will continue to do so," he said.

Google was "one of America's top spenders on research and development, making investments that spur innovation: Things that were science fiction a few years ago are now free for everyone," he stressed.

Lawmakers and activists have raised concerns about the growing dominance of online giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon in key segments of the digital economy.

A coalition of US states, including New York, on Friday launched an antitrust investigation of Facebook, the first of what is expected to be a wave of action against dominant technology firms.

The US Department of Justice has asked Google to provide records on past investigations, as part of its extensive probe of tech giants over possible anti-competitive practices, the internet titan said Friday.

The US Department of Justice has asked Google to provide records on past investigations, as part of its extensive probe of tech giants over possible anti-competitive practices, the internet titan said Friday. Washington has not named the companies it has targeted in its probe which began in July but it appears directed at the likes of dominant tech players such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon. "We have answered many questions on these issues over many years, in the United States as well as overseas, across many aspects of our business, so this is not new for us," Kent Walker, Google's senior vice president of global affairs, said in a blog post. "The DOJ (Department of Justice) has asked us to provide information about these past investigations, and we expect state attorneys general will ask similar questions," Walker said, confirming rumors in the US media that a coalition of US states would soon launch an antitrust investigation of the group. "We have always worked constructively with regulators and we will continue to do so," he said. Google was "one of America's top spenders on research and development, making investments that spur innovation: Things that were science fiction a few years ago are now free for everyone," he stressed. Lawmakers and activists have raised concerns about the growing dominance of online giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon in key segments of the digital economy. A coalition of US states, including New York, on Friday launched an antitrust investigation of Facebook, the first of what is expected to be a wave of action against dominant technology firms.

US Department of Justice seeks Google records as US states launch antitrust probe of Big Tech

A proposal to prevent big technology companies from functioning as financial institutions or <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebooks-libra-currency-under-fire-235697">issuing digital currencies </a>has been circulated for discussion by the Democratic majority that leads the House Financial Services Committee, according to a copy of the draft legislation.

In a sign of widening scrutiny after<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/if-facebooks-libra-wants-to-become-a-bank-it-must-must-seek-new-banking-charter-trump-235162"> Facebook Inc's proposed Libra digital </a>coin aroused widespread objection, the bill proposes a fine of $1 million per day for violation of such rules.

Such a sweeping proposal would likely spark opposition from Republican members of the house who are keen on innovation, and would likely struggle to gather enough votes to pass the lower chamber.

Even if it were to pass the full house, it would still have to pass the Senate which would also likely be an uphill struggle.

Nevertheless, the draft proposal sends a strong message to large tech firms increasingly eyeing the financial services space.

The draft legislation, "Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act", describes a large technology firm as a company mainly offering an online platform service with at least $25 billion in annual revenue.

"A large platform utility may not establish, maintain, or operate a digital asset that is intended to be widely used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value, or any other similar function, as defined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System," it proposes.

Facebook, which would qualify to be such an entity, said last month it would launch its global cryptocurrency in 2020.

Facebook and 28 partners, including Mastercard Inc, PayPal Holdings Inc and Uber Technologies Inc, would form the Libra Association to govern the new coin. No banks are currently part of the group.

Last week, US President Trump criticised Libra and other cryptocurrencies and demanded that companies seek a banking charter and make themselves subject to US and global regulations if they wanted to "become a bank."

His comments came after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told lawmakers that Facebook's plan to build a digital currency called Libra could not move forward unless it addressed concerns over privacy, money laundering, consumer protection and financial stability.

A proposal to prevent big technology companies from functioning as financial institutions or issuing digital currencies has been circulated for discussion by the Democratic majority that leads the House Financial Services Committee, according to a copy of the draft legislation.

A proposal to prevent big technology companies from functioning as financial institutions or issuing digital currencies has been circulated for discussion by the Democratic majority that leads the House Financial Services Committee, according to a copy of the draft legislation. In a sign of widening scrutiny after Facebook Inc's proposed Libra digital coin aroused widespread objection, the bill proposes a fine of $1 million per day for violation of such rules. Such a sweeping proposal would likely spark opposition from Republican members of the house who are keen on innovation, and would likely struggle to gather enough votes to pass the lower chamber. Even if it were to pass the full house, it would still have to pass the Senate which would also likely be an uphill struggle. Nevertheless, the draft proposal sends a strong message to large tech firms increasingly eyeing the financial services space. The draft legislation, "Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act", describes a large technology firm as a company mainly offering an online platform service with at least $25 billion in annual revenue. "A large platform utility may not establish, maintain, or operate a digital asset that is intended to be widely used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value, or any other similar function, as defined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System," it proposes. Facebook, which would qualify to be such an entity, said last month it would launch its global cryptocurrency in 2020. Facebook and 28 partners, including Mastercard Inc, PayPal Holdings Inc and Uber Technologies Inc, would form the Libra Association to govern the new coin. No banks are currently part of the group. Last week, US President Trump criticised Libra and other cryptocurrencies and demanded that companies seek a banking charter and make themselves subject to US and global regulations if they wanted to "become a bank." His comments came after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told lawmakers that Facebook's plan to build a digital currency called Libra could not move forward unless it addressed concerns over privacy, money laundering, consumer protection and financial stability.

US lawmakers propose barring big tech companies from offering financial services, digital currencies

big-tech

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