It was billed as a must-watch showdown between US Senators and big tech. What we got instead was a political slugfest. The Q&amp;A revolved around content moderation. Republicans accused big tech of an anti-conservative bias. Democrats did not want to be there at all. They rejected the hearing as a sham. A Republican plan to discredit fact-checking on social media is trying to score political points. Both sides ended up giving a free pass to the 3 CEOs.

The big debate was around the future of Section 230. It is a legal provision that provides immunity to tech giants. It protects their rights to regulate content on their platform. Twitter and Google defended the law fiercely. Facebook was open to possible amendments.

"Section 230 is the most important law protecting Internet speech and removing Section 230 will remove speech from the Internet," said Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter.

"Our ability to provide access to a wide range of information is only possible because of existing legal frameworks like Section 230," said Alphabet Inc (Google) CEO Sundar Pichai

"I believe Congress has a role to play, too, in order to give people confidence that the process is carried out in a way that balances societies deeply held values appropriately," said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

When the hearing moved on to the question of anti-conservative bias, things got a bit heated up.

"Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear? And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC," said Ted Cruz, Republican Senator from Texas

"We're not doing that and this is why I opened this hearing with calls for more transparency. We realize we need to earn trust more. We realize that more accountability is needed to show our intentions and to show the outcome. So I hear the concerns and acknowledge them but we want to fix it with more transparency," said Jack Dorsey in response.

Jack Dorsey fielded 48 questions compared to 21 for Zuckerberg and 12 for Pichai. The Republican Senators were putting on a show for Donald Trump and from the White House, the President was watching, and tweeting.

Three and half hours of questioning and it again got underlined that tech giants are too big. Their control over political discourse must be reigned in. Big Tech has made enemies everywhere. It plays the role of publisher, fact-checker and arbiter. Ideally, these roles should not be centralised. But ambiguous digital laws let them get away with it.

Fact-checking has been delegated to third party groups. But are these groups truly neutral? Or are they using fact-checking as an excuse for censorship? Can a private company be made the gatekeeper for social and political narratives?

Countries are waking up to the threat this poses. The European Union is preparing a new digital rulebook. India is also mulling regulations on social media content. Big tech is in the dock. The question they face is this, who is fact-checking the fact-checkers?

It was billed as a must-watch showdown between US Senators and big tech. What we got instead was a political slugfest. The Q&A revolved around content moderation.

It was billed as a must-watch showdown between US Senators and big tech. What we got instead was a political slugfest. The Q&A revolved around content moderation. Republicans accused big tech of an anti-conservative bias. Democrats did not want to be there at all. They rejected the hearing as a sham. A Republican plan to discredit fact-checking on social media is trying to score political points. Both sides ended up giving a free pass to the 3 CEOs. The big debate was around the future of Section 230. It is a legal provision that provides immunity to tech giants. It protects their rights to regulate content on their platform. Twitter and Google defended the law fiercely. Facebook was open to possible amendments. "Section 230 is the most important law protecting Internet speech and removing Section 230 will remove speech from the Internet," said Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter. "Our ability to provide access to a wide range of information is only possible because of existing legal frameworks like Section 230," said Alphabet Inc (Google) CEO Sundar Pichai "I believe Congress has a role to play, too, in order to give people confidence that the process is carried out in a way that balances societies deeply held values appropriately," said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg When the hearing moved on to the question of anti-conservative bias, things got a bit heated up. "Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear? And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC," said Ted Cruz, Republican Senator from Texas "We're not doing that and this is why I opened this hearing with calls for more transparency. We realize we need to earn trust more. We realize that more accountability is needed to show our intentions and to show the outcome. So I hear the concerns and acknowledge them but we want to fix it with more transparency," said Jack Dorsey in response. Jack Dorsey fielded 48 questions compared to 21 for Zuckerberg and 12 for Pichai. The Republican Senators were putting on a show for Donald Trump and from the White House, the President was watching, and tweeting. Three and half hours of questioning and it again got underlined that tech giants are too big. Their control over political discourse must be reigned in. Big Tech has made enemies everywhere. It plays the role of publisher, fact-checker and arbiter. Ideally, these roles should not be centralised. But ambiguous digital laws let them get away with it. Fact-checking has been delegated to third party groups. But are these groups truly neutral? Or are they using fact-checking as an excuse for censorship? Can a private company be made the gatekeeper for social and political narratives? Countries are waking up to the threat this poses. The European Union is preparing a new digital rulebook. India is also mulling regulations on social media content. Big tech is in the dock. The question they face is this, who is fact-checking the fact-checkers?

Big tech CEOs Senate hearing turns into a political slugfest

A unique situation unfolded itself as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg struggled to appear remotely for a US Senate hearing. Network or connection issues are generally faced by ordinary internet users but for Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of a tech giant and social media Czar to have difficulty connecting was a unique situation indeed. He was facing US Senate Commerce Committee. The hearing was on a key social media legal protection.

"We are unable to make contact with Mr. Mark Zuckerberg," Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the committee, said agreeing to a five-minute delay after the chief executives of Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google had spoken.

Facebook told the committee that Zuckerberg was alone. He was able to get connected in a couple of minutes.

"I was able to hear the other opening statements. I was just having a hard time connecting myself," Zuckerberg said.

Wicker responded: "I know the feeling Mr. Zuckerberg."

(With Reuters inputs)

A unique situation unfolded itself as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg struggled to appear remotely for a US Senate hearing. Network or connection issues are generally faced by ordinary internet users but for Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of a tech giant and social media Czar to have difficulty connecting was a unique situation indeed.

A unique situation unfolded itself as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg struggled to appear remotely for a US Senate hearing. Network or connection issues are generally faced by ordinary internet users but for Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of a tech giant and social media Czar to have difficulty connecting was a unique situation indeed. He was facing US Senate Commerce Committee. The hearing was on a key social media legal protection. "We are unable to make contact with Mr. Mark Zuckerberg," Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the committee, said agreeing to a five-minute delay after the chief executives of Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google had spoken. Facebook told the committee that Zuckerberg was alone. He was able to get connected in a couple of minutes. "I was able to hear the other opening statements. I was just having a hard time connecting myself," Zuckerberg said. Wicker responded: "I know the feeling Mr. Zuckerberg." (With Reuters inputs)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hit by 'bad connection', causes delay in US Senate hearing

When Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai, the chief executives of Apple and Google, were photographed eating dinner together in 2017 at an upscale Vietnamese restaurant called Tamarine, the picture set off a tabloid-worthy frenzy about the relationship between the two most powerful companies in Silicon Valley.

As the two men sipped red wine at a window table inside the restaurant in Palo Alto, their companies were in tense negotiations to renew one of the most lucrative business deals in history: an agreement to feature Google’s search engine as the preselected choice on Apple’s iPhone and other devices. The updated deal was worth billions of dollars to both companies and cemented their status at the top of the tech industry’s pecking order.

Now the partnership is in jeopardy. Last Tuesday, the Justice Department filed a landmark lawsuit against Google — the U.S. government’s biggest antitrust case in two decades — and homed in on the alliance as a prime example of what prosecutors say are the company’s illegal tactics to protect its monopoly and choke off competition in web search.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebooks-zuckerberg-twitters-dorsey-to-testify-before-us-senate-panel-after-us-election-337677">Also read|&nbsp;Facebook's Zuckerberg, Twitter's Dorsey to testify before US Senate panel after US election</a>

The scrutiny of the pact, which was first inked 15 years ago and has rarely been discussed by either company, has highlighted the special relationship between Silicon Valley’s two most valuable companies — an unlikely union of rivals that regulators say is unfairly preventing smaller companies from flourishing.

“We have this sort of strange term in Silicon Valley: co-optation,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel from 2009 to 2017. “You have brutal competition, but at the same time, you have necessary cooperation.”

Apple and Google are joined at the hip, even though Cook has said internet advertising, Google’s bread and butter, engages in “surveillance” of consumers and even though Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, once promised “thermonuclear war” on his Silicon Valley neighbor when he learned it was working on a rival to the iPhone.

Apple and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, worth more than $3 trillion combined, do compete on plenty of fronts, like smartphones, digital maps and laptops. But they also know how to make nice when it suits their interests. And few deals have been nicer to both sides of the table than the iPhone search deal.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-loss-joe-biden-breaks-television-spending-record-week-before-us-election-2020-337663">Also read|&nbsp;Trump's loss: Joe Biden breaks television spending record week before US Election 2020</a>

Nearly half of Google’s search traffic now comes from Apple devices, according to the Justice Department, and the prospect of losing the Apple deal has been described as a “code red” scenario inside the company. When iPhone users search on Google, they see the search ads that drive Google’s business. They can also find their way to other Google products, like YouTube.

A former Google executive, who asked not to be identified because he was not permitted to talk about the deal, said the prospect of losing Apple’s traffic was “terrifying” to the company.

The Justice Department, which is asking for a court injunction preventing Google from entering into deals like the one it made with Apple, argues that the arrangement has unfairly helped make Google, which handles 92% of the world’s internet searches, the center of consumers’ online lives.

Online businesses like Yelp and Expedia as well as companies ranging from noodle shops to news organizations often complain that Google’s search domination enables it to charge advertising fees when people simply look up their names, as well as to steer consumers toward its own products, like Google Maps. Microsoft, which had its own antitrust battle two decades ago, has told British regulators that if it were the default option on iPhones and iPads, it would make more advertising money for every search on its rival search engine, Bing.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/selena-gomez-calls-out-mark-zuckerberg-asks-to-stop-spreading-misinformation-328628">Also read|&nbsp;Selena Gomez calls out Mark Zuckerberg, asks to stop spreading misinformation</a>

What’s more, competitors like DuckDuckGo, a small search engine that sells itself as a privacy-focused alternative to Google, could never match Google’s tab with Apple.

Apple now receives an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion in annual payments — up from $1 billion a year in 2014 — in exchange for building Google’s search engine into its products. It is probably the single biggest payment that Google makes to anyone and accounts for 14% to 21% of Apple’s annual profits. That’s not money Apple would be eager to walk away from.

In fact, Cook and Pichai met again in 2018 to discuss how they could increase revenue from search. After the meeting, a senior Apple employee wrote to a Google counterpart that “our vision is that we work as if we are one company,” according to the Justice Department’s complaint.

A forced breakup could mean the loss of easy money to Apple. But it would be a more significant threat to Google, which would have no obvious way to replace the lost traffic. It could also push Apple to acquire or build its own search engine. Within Google, people believe that Apple is one of the few companies in the world that could offer a formidable alternative, according to one former executive. Google has also worried that without the agreement, Apple could make it more difficult for iPhone users to get to the Google search engine.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/streaming-service-quibi-to-wind-down-operations-six-months-after-launch-337040">Also read|&nbsp;Streaming service Quibi to wind down operations six months after launch</a>

A spokesperson for Apple declined to comment on the partnership, while a Google spokesperson pointed to a blog post in which the company defended the relationship.

Even though its bill with Apple keeps going up, Google has said again and again that it dominates internet search because consumers prefer it, not because it is buying customers. The company argues that the Justice Department is painting an incomplete picture; its partnership with Apple, it says, is no different than Coca-Cola paying a supermarket for prominent shelf space.

Other search engines like Microsoft’s Bing also have revenue-sharing agreements with Apple to appear as secondary search options on iPhones, Google says in its defense. It adds that Apple allows people to change their default search engine from Google — though few probably do because people typically don’t tinker with such settings and many prefer Google anyway.

Apple has rarely, if ever, publicly acknowledged its deal with Google and, according to Bernstein Research, has mentioned its so-called licensing revenue in an earnings call for the first time this year.

According to a former senior executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality contracts, Apple’s leaders have made the same calculation about Google as much of the general public: The utility of its search engine is worth the cost of its invasive practices.

“Their search engine is the best,” Cook said when asked by Axios in late 2018 why he partnered with a company he also implicitly criticized. He added that Apple had also created ways to blunt Google’s collection of data, such as a private-browsing mode on Apple’s internet browser.

The deal is not limited to searches in Apple’s Safari browser; it extends to virtually all searches done on Apple devices, including with Apple’s virtual assistant, Siri, and on Google’s iPhone app and Chrome browser.

The relationship between the companies has swung from friendly to contentious to today’s “co-optation.” In the early years of Google, the company’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, saw Jobs as a mentor, and they would take long walks with him to discuss the future of technology.

In 2005, Apple and Google inked what at the time seemed like a modest deal: Google would be the default search engine on Apple’s Safari browser on Mac computers.

Quickly, Cook, then still a deputy to Jobs, saw the arrangement’s lucrative potential, according to another former senior Apple executive who asked not to be named. Google’s payments were pure profit, and all Apple had to do was feature a search engine its users already wanted.

Apple expanded the deal for its big upcoming product: the iPhone. When Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he invited Eric Schmidt, Google’s then chief executive, to join him onstage for the first of Apple’s many famous iPhone events.

“If we just sort of merged the two companies, we could just call them AppleGoo,” joked Schmidt, who was also on Apple’s board of directors. With Google search on the iPhone, he added, “you can actually merge without merging.”

Then the relationship soured. Google had quietly been developing a competitor to the iPhone: smartphone software called Android that any phone-maker could use. Jobs was furious. In 2010, Apple sued a phone-maker that used Android. “I’m going to destroy Android,” Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson. “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to.”

A year later, Apple introduced Siri. Instead of Google underpinning the virtual assistant, it was Microsoft’s Bing.

Yet the companies’ partnership on iPhones continued — too lucrative for either side to blow it up. Apple had arranged the deal to require periodic renegotiations, according to a former senior executive, and each time, it extracted more money from Google.

“You have to be able to maintain those relationships and not burn a bridge,” said Sewell, Apple’s former general counsel, who declined to discuss specifics of the deal. “At the same time, when you’re negotiating on behalf of your company and you’re trying to get the best deal, then, you know, the gloves come off.”

Around 2017, the deal was up for renewal. Google was facing a squeeze, with clicks on its mobile ads not growing fast enough. Apple was not satisfied with Bing’s performance for Siri. And Cook had just announced that Apple aimed to double its services revenue to $50 billion by 2020, an ambitious goal that would be possible only with Google’s payments.

By the fall of 2017, Apple announced that Google was now helping Siri answer questions, and Google disclosed that its payments for search traffic had jumped. The company offered an anodyne explanation to part of the reason it was suddenly paying some unnamed company hundreds of millions of dollars more: “changes in partner agreements.”

When Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai, the chief executives of Apple and Google, were photographed eating dinner together in 2017 at an upscale Vietnamese restaurant called Tamarine, the picture set off a tabloid-worthy frenzy about the relationship between the two most powerful companies in Silicon Valley.

When Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai, the chief executives of Apple and Google, were photographed eating dinner together in 2017 at an upscale Vietnamese restaurant called Tamarine, the picture set off a tabloid-worthy frenzy about the relationship between the two most powerful companies in Silicon Valley. As the two men sipped red wine at a window table inside the restaurant in Palo Alto, their companies were in tense negotiations to renew one of the most lucrative business deals in history: an agreement to feature Google’s search engine as the preselected choice on Apple’s iPhone and other devices. The updated deal was worth billions of dollars to both companies and cemented their status at the top of the tech industry’s pecking order. Now the partnership is in jeopardy. Last Tuesday, the Justice Department filed a landmark lawsuit against Google — the U.S. government’s biggest antitrust case in two decades — and homed in on the alliance as a prime example of what prosecutors say are the company’s illegal tactics to protect its monopoly and choke off competition in web search. Also read| Facebook's Zuckerberg, Twitter's Dorsey to testify before US Senate panel after US election The scrutiny of the pact, which was first inked 15 years ago and has rarely been discussed by either company, has highlighted the special relationship between Silicon Valley’s two most valuable companies — an unlikely union of rivals that regulators say is unfairly preventing smaller companies from flourishing. “We have this sort of strange term in Silicon Valley: co-optation,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel from 2009 to 2017. “You have brutal competition, but at the same time, you have necessary cooperation.” Apple and Google are joined at the hip, even though Cook has said internet advertising, Google’s bread and butter, engages in “surveillance” of consumers and even though Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, once promised “thermonuclear war” on his Silicon Valley neighbor when he learned it was working on a rival to the iPhone. Apple and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, worth more than $3 trillion combined, do compete on plenty of fronts, like smartphones, digital maps and laptops. But they also know how to make nice when it suits their interests. And few deals have been nicer to both sides of the table than the iPhone search deal. Also read| Trump's loss: Joe Biden breaks television spending record week before US Election 2020 Nearly half of Google’s search traffic now comes from Apple devices, according to the Justice Department, and the prospect of losing the Apple deal has been described as a “code red” scenario inside the company. When iPhone users search on Google, they see the search ads that drive Google’s business. They can also find their way to other Google products, like YouTube. A former Google executive, who asked not to be identified because he was not permitted to talk about the deal, said the prospect of losing Apple’s traffic was “terrifying” to the company. The Justice Department, which is asking for a court injunction preventing Google from entering into deals like the one it made with Apple, argues that the arrangement has unfairly helped make Google, which handles 92% of the world’s internet searches, the center of consumers’ online lives. Online businesses like Yelp and Expedia as well as companies ranging from noodle shops to news organizations often complain that Google’s search domination enables it to charge advertising fees when people simply look up their names, as well as to steer consumers toward its own products, like Google Maps. Microsoft, which had its own antitrust battle two decades ago, has told British regulators that if it were the default option on iPhones and iPads, it would make more advertising money for every search on its rival search engine, Bing. Also read| Selena Gomez calls out Mark Zuckerberg, asks to stop spreading misinformation What’s more, competitors like DuckDuckGo, a small search engine that sells itself as a privacy-focused alternative to Google, could never match Google’s tab with Apple. Apple now receives an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion in annual payments — up from $1 billion a year in 2014 — in exchange for building Google’s search engine into its products. It is probably the single biggest payment that Google makes to anyone and accounts for 14% to 21% of Apple’s annual profits. That’s not money Apple would be eager to walk away from. In fact, Cook and Pichai met again in 2018 to discuss how they could increase revenue from search. After the meeting, a senior Apple employee wrote to a Google counterpart that “our vision is that we work as if we are one company,” according to the Justice Department’s complaint. A forced breakup could mean the loss of easy money to Apple. But it would be a more significant threat to Google, which would have no obvious way to replace the lost traffic. It could also push Apple to acquire or build its own search engine. Within Google, people believe that Apple is one of the few companies in the world that could offer a formidable alternative, according to one former executive. Google has also worried that without the agreement, Apple could make it more difficult for iPhone users to get to the Google search engine. Also read| Streaming service Quibi to wind down operations six months after launch A spokesperson for Apple declined to comment on the partnership, while a Google spokesperson pointed to a blog post in which the company defended the relationship. Even though its bill with Apple keeps going up, Google has said again and again that it dominates internet search because consumers prefer it, not because it is buying customers. The company argues that the Justice Department is painting an incomplete picture; its partnership with Apple, it says, is no different than Coca-Cola paying a supermarket for prominent shelf space. Other search engines like Microsoft’s Bing also have revenue-sharing agreements with Apple to appear as secondary search options on iPhones, Google says in its defense. It adds that Apple allows people to change their default search engine from Google — though few probably do because people typically don’t tinker with such settings and many prefer Google anyway. Apple has rarely, if ever, publicly acknowledged its deal with Google and, according to Bernstein Research, has mentioned its so-called licensing revenue in an earnings call for the first time this year. According to a former senior executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality contracts, Apple’s leaders have made the same calculation about Google as much of the general public: The utility of its search engine is worth the cost of its invasive practices. “Their search engine is the best,” Cook said when asked by Axios in late 2018 why he partnered with a company he also implicitly criticized. He added that Apple had also created ways to blunt Google’s collection of data, such as a private-browsing mode on Apple’s internet browser. The deal is not limited to searches in Apple’s Safari browser; it extends to virtually all searches done on Apple devices, including with Apple’s virtual assistant, Siri, and on Google’s iPhone app and Chrome browser. The relationship between the companies has swung from friendly to contentious to today’s “co-optation.” In the early years of Google, the company’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, saw Jobs as a mentor, and they would take long walks with him to discuss the future of technology. In 2005, Apple and Google inked what at the time seemed like a modest deal: Google would be the default search engine on Apple’s Safari browser on Mac computers. Quickly, Cook, then still a deputy to Jobs, saw the arrangement’s lucrative potential, according to another former senior Apple executive who asked not to be named. Google’s payments were pure profit, and all Apple had to do was feature a search engine its users already wanted. Apple expanded the deal for its big upcoming product: the iPhone. When Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he invited Eric Schmidt, Google’s then chief executive, to join him onstage for the first of Apple’s many famous iPhone events. “If we just sort of merged the two companies, we could just call them AppleGoo,” joked Schmidt, who was also on Apple’s board of directors. With Google search on the iPhone, he added, “you can actually merge without merging.” Then the relationship soured. Google had quietly been developing a competitor to the iPhone: smartphone software called Android that any phone-maker could use. Jobs was furious. In 2010, Apple sued a phone-maker that used Android. “I’m going to destroy Android,” Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson. “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to.” A year later, Apple introduced Siri. Instead of Google underpinning the virtual assistant, it was Microsoft’s Bing. Yet the companies’ partnership on iPhones continued — too lucrative for either side to blow it up. Apple had arranged the deal to require periodic renegotiations, according to a former senior executive, and each time, it extracted more money from Google. “You have to be able to maintain those relationships and not burn a bridge,” said Sewell, Apple’s former general counsel, who declined to discuss specifics of the deal. “At the same time, when you’re negotiating on behalf of your company and you’re trying to get the best deal, then, you know, the gloves come off.” Around 2017, the deal was up for renewal. Google was facing a squeeze, with clicks on its mobile ads not growing fast enough. Apple was not satisfied with Bing’s performance for Siri. And Cook had just announced that Apple aimed to double its services revenue to $50 billion by 2020, an ambitious goal that would be possible only with Google’s payments. By the fall of 2017, Apple announced that Google was now helping Siri answer questions, and Google disclosed that its payments for search traffic had jumped. The company offered an anodyne explanation to part of the reason it was suddenly paying some unnamed company hundreds of millions of dollars more: “changes in partner agreements.”

Apple, Google and a deal that controls the internet

India-born judge Amit Mehta has been assigned US Justice Department's lawsuit against Google. Amit Mehta is an Obama appointee and is a district judge. US Justice Department has filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google to stop it from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms.

"As one of the wealthiest companies on the planet with a market value of $1 trillion, Google is the monopoly gatekeeper to the internet for billions of users and countless advertisers worldwide. For years, Google has accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States and has used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising," the Justice Department said.

More on Amit Mehta

Mehta was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on December 22, 2014. 
Born in Patan, Gujarat, Mehta received his BA in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University in 1993 and his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1997. After law school, Mehta worked in a law firm in San Francisco before clerking for Susan Graber of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.&nbsp;

Following his clerkship, Mehta worked at a Washington, DC-based law firm. In 2002, Mehta joined the District of Columbia Public Defender Service as a staff attorney.

Mehta served on the Board of Directors of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and is the former co-chair of the District of Columbia Bar's Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section Steering Committee.&nbsp;

He is also a former Director of Facilitating Leadership in Youth, a non-profit organization dedicated to after-school activities and mentoring for at-risk youth, according to his profile on the website of US District Court, District of Columbia.

US Justice Department has filed lawsuit against Google alongwith 11 Attorney Generals of various US states.

The participating state Attorneys General offices represent Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas.

(With PTI inputs)

India-born judge Amit Mehta has been assigned US Justice Department's lawsuit against Google. Amit Mehta is an Obama appointee and is a district judge. US Justice Department has filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google to stop it from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms.

India-born judge Amit Mehta has been assigned US Justice Department's lawsuit against Google. Amit Mehta is an Obama appointee and is a district judge. US Justice Department has filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google to stop it from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms. "As one of the wealthiest companies on the planet with a market value of $1 trillion, Google is the monopoly gatekeeper to the internet for billions of users and countless advertisers worldwide. For years, Google has accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States and has used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising," the Justice Department said. More on Amit Mehta Mehta was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on December 22, 2014. Born in Patan, Gujarat, Mehta received his BA in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University in 1993 and his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1997. After law school, Mehta worked in a law firm in San Francisco before clerking for Susan Graber of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his clerkship, Mehta worked at a Washington, DC-based law firm. In 2002, Mehta joined the District of Columbia Public Defender Service as a staff attorney. Mehta served on the Board of Directors of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and is the former co-chair of the District of Columbia Bar's Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section Steering Committee. He is also a former Director of Facilitating Leadership in Youth, a non-profit organization dedicated to after-school activities and mentoring for at-risk youth, according to his profile on the website of US District Court, District of Columbia. US Justice Department has filed lawsuit against Google alongwith 11 Attorney Generals of various US states. The participating state Attorneys General offices represent Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas. (With PTI inputs)

India-born Judge Amit Mehta to decide on lawsuit against Google

Months before the US election, the Democratic President elect Joe Biden's election campaign was targeted by a group of Chinese hackers in&nbsp;a phishing attack.

A Google report by the Threat Analysis Group (TAG) has now claimed that the attack coordinated by a group of Chinese hackers are faking&nbsp;antivirus software McAfee to target the suspects.

This group of hackers appears to be the same group that had earlier targeted the US President Donald Trump in an&nbsp;unsuccessful attack.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/twitter-changes-policy-on-hacking-after-biden-censorship-expose-fiasco-335713">Also read|&nbsp;Twitter changes policy on hacking after Biden censorship expose fiasco</a>

As per the report, the hackers&nbsp;from the Iranian attacker group (APT35) and the Chinese attacker group (APT31) send a prompt asking victims to install the antivirus software and then let the virus silently creep into their systems.

Explaining how the group attacks the victims, Google's report stated, "The targets would be prompted to install a legitimate version of McAfee anti-virus software from GitHub, while malware was simultaneously silently installed to the system."

The tech giant claims that there has been an increase in such attacks in the pandemic, especially with the US elections being a few weeks away.

However, Google also assured that as soon as these attacks are identified, the victim is informed on a priority basis. "When we detect that a user is the target of a government-backed attack, we send them a prominent warning. In these cases, we also shared our findings with the campaigns and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This targeting is consistent with what others have subsequently reported."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-behind-cyberattack-on-parliament-norway-335097">Also read:&nbsp;Russia behind cyberattack on parliament: Norway</a>

The report also cautioned users to rethink their YouTube activity, explaining that their&nbsp;Trust and Safety teams terminated more than 3,000 YouTube channels. TAG claimed that they have tracked a large spam network — linked to China — that runs an influence operation, especially on YouTube, that targets existing accounts by&nbsp;"posting spammy content in Mandarin such as videos of animals, music, food, plants, sports, and games."

"Such videos frequently feature clumsy translations and computer-generated voices. Researchers at Graphika and FireEye have detailed how this network behaves—including its shift from posting content in Mandarin about issues related to Hong Kong and China’s response to COVID-19, to including a small subset of content in English and Mandarin about current events in the U.S. (such as protests around racial justice, the wildfires on the West Coast, and the U.S. response to COVID-19)," the report continued.

Months before the US election, the Democratic President elect Joe Biden's election campaign was targeted by a group of Chinese hackers in a phishing attack. A Google report by the Threat Analysis Group (TAG) has now claimed that the attack coordinated by a group of Chinese hackers are faking antivirus software McAfee to target the suspects.

Months before the US election, the Democratic President elect Joe Biden's election campaign was targeted by a group of Chinese hackers in a phishing attack. A Google report by the Threat Analysis Group (TAG) has now claimed that the attack coordinated by a group of Chinese hackers are faking antivirus software McAfee to target the suspects. This group of hackers appears to be the same group that had earlier targeted the US President Donald Trump in an unsuccessful attack. Also read| Twitter changes policy on hacking after Biden censorship expose fiasco As per the report, the hackers from the Iranian attacker group (APT35) and the Chinese attacker group (APT31) send a prompt asking victims to install the antivirus software and then let the virus silently creep into their systems. Explaining how the group attacks the victims, Google's report stated, "The targets would be prompted to install a legitimate version of McAfee anti-virus software from GitHub, while malware was simultaneously silently installed to the system." The tech giant claims that there has been an increase in such attacks in the pandemic, especially with the US elections being a few weeks away. However, Google also assured that as soon as these attacks are identified, the victim is informed on a priority basis. "When we detect that a user is the target of a government-backed attack, we send them a prominent warning. In these cases, we also shared our findings with the campaigns and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This targeting is consistent with what others have subsequently reported." Also read: Russia behind cyberattack on parliament: Norway The report also cautioned users to rethink their YouTube activity, explaining that their Trust and Safety teams terminated more than 3,000 YouTube channels. TAG claimed that they have tracked a large spam network — linked to China — that runs an influence operation, especially on YouTube, that targets existing accounts by "posting spammy content in Mandarin such as videos of animals, music, food, plants, sports, and games." "Such videos frequently feature clumsy translations and computer-generated voices. Researchers at Graphika and FireEye have detailed how this network behaves—including its shift from posting content in Mandarin about issues related to Hong Kong and China’s response to COVID-19, to including a small subset of content in English and Mandarin about current events in the U.S. (such as protests around racial justice, the wildfires on the West Coast, and the U.S. response to COVID-19)," the report continued.

Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google

Bosses of tech giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google have declined to appear before a panel of US Senate, said a Republican Senator. The panel had unanimously voted on Thursday to summon Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai. They were to be questioned by the Commerce Committee of the US Senate on disinformation, online scams and a range of social ills.

"After extending an invitation to these executives, I regret that they have again declined to participate and answer questions on the record about issues that are so visible and urgent to the American people," said Republican Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the panel.

Big tech platforms face heightened scrutiny on monopoly concerns. They are also on line for failing to stop the spread of hateful content.

"We have questioned how they are protecting and securing the data of millions of Americans, we've explored how they're combating disinformation fraud and other online scams, we've examined whether they are providing a safe and secure internet experience for children and teens," said Wicker.

Big Tech firms, including Amazon, Apple and Microsoft, have seen their economic power grow in recent years and accelerate during the coronavirus pandemic, dominating a range of economic sectors.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fumes-as-facebook-twitter-limit-reach-of-smoking-gun-article-on-biden-and-his-son-335344">Trump fumes as Facebook, Twitter limit reach of 'smoking gun' article on Biden and his son</a>

President Donald Trump and his allies have claimed tech platforms are biased against conservatives, despite his own vast social media following.

Democrats meanwhile have expressed concerns over monopoly abuses and the failure of social media to stem misinformation from Trump himself.

Lawmakers from both parties have called for changes to the legal liability shield of online services under a law known as Section 230, claiming the provision enables toxic and harmful content to proliferate.

Google and Facebook are also under scrutiny by federal and state antitrust regulators.

(With inputs from AFP)

Bosses of tech giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google have declined to appear before a panel of US Senate, said a Republican Senator. The panel had unanimously voted on Thursday to summon Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai.

Bosses of tech giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google have declined to appear before a panel of US Senate, said a Republican Senator. The panel had unanimously voted on Thursday to summon Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai. They were to be questioned by the Commerce Committee of the US Senate on disinformation, online scams and a range of social ills. "After extending an invitation to these executives, I regret that they have again declined to participate and answer questions on the record about issues that are so visible and urgent to the American people," said Republican Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the panel. Big tech platforms face heightened scrutiny on monopoly concerns. They are also on line for failing to stop the spread of hateful content. "We have questioned how they are protecting and securing the data of millions of Americans, we've explored how they're combating disinformation fraud and other online scams, we've examined whether they are providing a safe and secure internet experience for children and teens," said Wicker. Big Tech firms, including Amazon, Apple and Microsoft, have seen their economic power grow in recent years and accelerate during the coronavirus pandemic, dominating a range of economic sectors. Also Read | Trump fumes as Facebook, Twitter limit reach of 'smoking gun' article on Biden and his son President Donald Trump and his allies have claimed tech platforms are biased against conservatives, despite his own vast social media following. Democrats meanwhile have expressed concerns over monopoly abuses and the failure of social media to stem misinformation from Trump himself. Lawmakers from both parties have called for changes to the legal liability shield of online services under a law known as Section 230, claiming the provision enables toxic and harmful content to proliferate. Google and Facebook are also under scrutiny by federal and state antitrust regulators. (With inputs from AFP)

Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai decline to appear before US Senate

Ahead of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/us-election">US election 2020</a>, the tech giant Google has decided to add some features related to the elections and voting which can help the voters through the process.

If a voter searches for phrases such as "early voting locations" or&nbsp;"ballot drop boxes near me", the search engine will now show the details on where can one go to vote and will also show the drop boxes for mail-in voters. The search will also give information such as the distance and time it will take to travel there, and the amount of crowd.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-how-are-votes-counted-in-the-presidential-election-335422">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: How are votes counted in the presidential election?</a>

The same will also remind people about what all do the voters need to carry with themselves while going to that specific location, such as identitity cards,&nbsp;bring your ballot completed and sealed, and so on.

"Just as easily, you`ll soon be able to ask, `Hey Google, where do I vote?` and Google Assistant will share details on where to vote nearby on your Assistant-enabled phone, smart speaker or Smart Display," Yunhan Xu, Product Manager at Google wrote in a blog post.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-how-the-states-vote-for-the-presidential-elections-335430">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: How the States vote for the Presidential elections</a>

"After you`ve selected a voting location or ballot drop box in your area, you can click through from Google Search or Google Assistant to Google Maps for quick information about how far it is, how to get there, and voting hours."

Similarly, if you search for your voting location in Google Maps you`ll have easy access to the feature in Search to help you confirm where you can cast your vote, the company said.

The features have been revealed just a couple of weeks prior to the election date, i.e. November 03. Some of the states have already started early voting. This year, the election is between the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Ahead of the US election 2020, the tech giant Google has decided to add some features related to the elections and voting which can help the voters through the process.

Ahead of the US election 2020, the tech giant Google has decided to add some features related to the elections and voting which can help the voters through the process. If a voter searches for phrases such as "early voting locations" or "ballot drop boxes near me", the search engine will now show the details on where can one go to vote and will also show the drop boxes for mail-in voters. The search will also give information such as the distance and time it will take to travel there, and the amount of crowd. Also read| US election 2020: How are votes counted in the presidential election? The same will also remind people about what all do the voters need to carry with themselves while going to that specific location, such as identitity cards, bring your ballot completed and sealed, and so on. "Just as easily, you`ll soon be able to ask, `Hey Google, where do I vote?` and Google Assistant will share details on where to vote nearby on your Assistant-enabled phone, smart speaker or Smart Display," Yunhan Xu, Product Manager at Google wrote in a blog post. Also read| US election 2020: How the States vote for the Presidential elections "After you`ve selected a voting location or ballot drop box in your area, you can click through from Google Search or Google Assistant to Google Maps for quick information about how far it is, how to get there, and voting hours." Similarly, if you search for your voting location in Google Maps you`ll have easy access to the feature in Search to help you confirm where you can cast your vote, the company said. The features have been revealed just a couple of weeks prior to the election date, i.e. November 03. Some of the states have already started early voting. This year, the election is between the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Google launches election-related features weeks before US election 2020

There seems to a glitch in Google's algorithm. Fans of Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma and Ace Afghanistan legs spinner Rashid Khan were in for a surprise on Monday as Google search on the cricketer suggest that Sharma is his wife. Turns out the glitch has been there for a long time. 
 
In reality Sharma is married to India's cricket team captain and Royal Challengers Bangalore skipper Virat Kohli. 
 
On Google when one searches Rashid Khan and his wife, the search bar shows up Sharma's name followed by a short bio of Khan's achievement as a player. The spouse section shows Sharma's name. 
 
Why is Google, though, throwing up such a bizarre result? The reasons seems to be a result of an interecation that the cricketer had in 2018 with his fans on Instagram where he had named Anushka Sharma and Preity Zinta as his favourite Bollywood actresses. 
 
The interview seemed to have thrown Google trends and algorithm into a frenzy and since then the search engine has been showing this bizarre result on the search bar. 
 
Interestingly, just a few months back&nbsp; the 22-year-old Afghanistan spinner, during an interaction, stated that he had no plans to marry or get engaged till his country's cricket team did not win the world cup. 
 
In a chat with Azadi Radio, Rashid Khan said, “I will get engaged &amp; married once Afghanistan win the cricket world.” 
 
The statement had resulted in several memes on Twitter with many praising Rashid for hsi dedication.

There seems to a glitch in Google's algorithm. Fans of Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma and Ace Afghanistan legs spinner Rashid Khan were in for a surprise on Monday as Google search on the cricketer suggest that Sharma is his wife.

There seems to a glitch in Google's algorithm. Fans of Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma and Ace Afghanistan legs spinner Rashid Khan were in for a surprise on Monday as Google search on the cricketer suggest that Sharma is his wife. Turns out the glitch has been there for a long time. In reality Sharma is married to India's cricket team captain and Royal Challengers Bangalore skipper Virat Kohli. On Google when one searches Rashid Khan and his wife, the search bar shows up Sharma's name followed by a short bio of Khan's achievement as a player. The spouse section shows Sharma's name. Why is Google, though, throwing up such a bizarre result? The reasons seems to be a result of an interecation that the cricketer had in 2018 with his fans on Instagram where he had named Anushka Sharma and Preity Zinta as his favourite Bollywood actresses. The interview seemed to have thrown Google trends and algorithm into a frenzy and since then the search engine has been showing this bizarre result on the search bar. Interestingly, just a few months back the 22-year-old Afghanistan spinner, during an interaction, stated that he had no plans to marry or get engaged till his country's cricket team did not win the world cup. In a chat with Azadi Radio, Rashid Khan said, “I will get engaged & married once Afghanistan win the cricket world.” The statement had resulted in several memes on Twitter with many praising Rashid for hsi dedication.

Google is showing Anushka Sharma as Rashid Khan's wife. Here's why

After a long battle bwteeen Fortnite and Apple Inc, it is now Google Play Store which has been caught in a battle for commission rates with app developers.

South Korea has started a probe into the Google's plan of charging 30 per cent commission for the apps on the Google Play Store&nbsp; — similar to Apple.

While Google has been charging the same commission for some time, it has not been very strict about it, unlike PAple Inc. which was caught in a battle with the popular video game Fortnite.

Google has now announced that the policy will be strictly initiated from next year, but will apply to less than three per cent of the developers. However, South Korean app developers have raised concerns about this and feel that the commission fee of 30 per cent is a little too high, especially in the pandemic.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-faces-new-antitrust-case-in-india-over-abuse-in-smart-tvs-market-sources-333434">Also read|&nbsp;Google faces new antitrust case in India over abuse in smart TVs market: Sources</a>

Joh Sung-wook, chairperson of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), on Thursday said Google's plan was being investigated for possible "anti-competitive practises".

"Competition isn't working properly in the industry," she told lawmakers during a parliamentary audit.

"We are searching for anti-competitive practices in order to restore competition."

These comments have come after few South Korean companies knocked on the court's door to re-assess the permission granted to Google in this case and bring a change in this policy.

South Korea is an important marker for Google Play Store as the play store held a 63.4 per cent share of total app store sales in South Korea last year leaving behind Apple Store which only has 24.4 per cent.

After a long battle bwteeen Fortnite and Apple Inc, it is now Google Play Store which has been caught in a battle for commission rates with app developers. South Korea has started a probe into the Google's plan of charging 30 per cent commission for the apps on the Google Play Store — similar to Apple.

After a long battle bwteeen Fortnite and Apple Inc, it is now Google Play Store which has been caught in a battle for commission rates with app developers. South Korea has started a probe into the Google's plan of charging 30 per cent commission for the apps on the Google Play Store — similar to Apple. While Google has been charging the same commission for some time, it has not been very strict about it, unlike PAple Inc. which was caught in a battle with the popular video game Fortnite. Google has now announced that the policy will be strictly initiated from next year, but will apply to less than three per cent of the developers. However, South Korean app developers have raised concerns about this and feel that the commission fee of 30 per cent is a little too high, especially in the pandemic. Also read| Google faces new antitrust case in India over abuse in smart TVs market: Sources Joh Sung-wook, chairperson of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), on Thursday said Google's plan was being investigated for possible "anti-competitive practises". "Competition isn't working properly in the industry," she told lawmakers during a parliamentary audit. "We are searching for anti-competitive practices in order to restore competition." These comments have come after few South Korean companies knocked on the court's door to re-assess the permission granted to Google in this case and bring a change in this policy. South Korea is an important marker for Google Play Store as the play store held a 63.4 per cent share of total app store sales in South Korea last year leaving behind Apple Store which only has 24.4 per cent.

South Korean developers request change in 30% commission for Google Play Store

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants&nbsp;Google and&nbsp;Oracle has puzzled and divided the&nbsp;Supreme Court of the&nbsp;United States of America.

Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,&nbsp;heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case has been revived after&nbsp;Google's appeal to review&nbsp;a lower court ruling&nbsp;in which&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;sought&nbsp;damages from the company for&nbsp;copying thousands of lines of computer code from its popular Java programming language without a license in order to make Android, a competing platform that has harmed&nbsp;Oracle's business.

To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organisation that's part of Oracle's Java platform.

Google says what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it says there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Oracle says Google committed an ''egregious act of plagiarism''&nbsp;and sued.

A jury cleared Google in 2016, but the US&nbsp;Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision in 2018, finding that Google's inclusion of&nbsp;Oracle's software code in Android was not permissible under US&nbsp;copyright law.

Google lawyer Thomas Goldstein told the justices that the disputed Java code should not receive copyright protection because it was the "the only way" to create new programs using the programming language.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google still should have paid&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;for a license to Java.

"Cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn't mean you can do it," Roberts said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Goldstein on whether Google had simply piggybacked on&nbsp;Oracle's innovation.

Gorsuch asked, "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?"

Oracle&nbsp;and Google, two California-based technology giants with combined annual revenues of about $200 billion, have been feuding since&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;sued for copyright infringement in 2010 in federal court in San Francisco.

Google has said the shortcut commands it copied into Android do not warrant copyright protection because they help developers write programs to work across platforms, a key to software innovation.

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants Google and Oracle has puzzled and divided the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants Google and Oracle has puzzled and divided the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, heard oral arguments on Wednesday. The case has been revived after Google's appeal to review a lower court ruling in which Oracle sought damages from the company for copying thousands of lines of computer code from its popular Java programming language without a license in order to make Android, a competing platform that has harmed Oracle's business. To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organisation that's part of Oracle's Java platform. Google says what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it says there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Oracle says Google committed an ''egregious act of plagiarism'' and sued. A jury cleared Google in 2016, but the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision in 2018, finding that Google's inclusion of Oracle's software code in Android was not permissible under US copyright law. Google lawyer Thomas Goldstein told the justices that the disputed Java code should not receive copyright protection because it was the "the only way" to create new programs using the programming language. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google still should have paid Oracle for a license to Java. "Cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn't mean you can do it," Roberts said. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Goldstein on whether Google had simply piggybacked on Oracle's innovation. Gorsuch asked, "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?" Oracle and Google, two California-based technology giants with combined annual revenues of about $200 billion, have been feuding since Oracle sued for copyright infringement in 2010 in federal court in San Francisco. Google has said the shortcut commands it copied into Android do not warrant copyright protection because they help developers write programs to work across platforms, a key to software innovation.

US Supreme Court puzzled over Google, Oracle high tech copyright clash

In a major development, Google &nbsp;has decided to pay USD 1 billion to publishers globally for their news content. The payment will be made over next three years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the new product called Google News showcase will be launch first in Germany and in Brazil.

This has marked a major step that appears to pacify news publishers around the world who have fought Google for compensation for using their content.&nbsp;

Google showcase will be rolled out in Belgium, India, Netherlands and other countries. In Germany Google has signed up with German newspapers including Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in Brazil with Folha de S.Paulo, Band and Infobae.

"This financial commitment - our biggest to date - will pay publishers to create and curate high-quality content for a different kind of online news experience," Pichai said in a blog post.

Google parent Alphabet reported a net profit of $34.3 billion on revenue of almost $162 billion last year. 
The product, which allows publishers to pick and present their stories, will launch on Google News on Android devices and eventually on Apple devices.

"This approach is distinct from our other news products because it leans on the editorial choices individual publishers make about which stories to show readers and how to present them," Pichai said.

German publisher the Spiegel Group welcomed the project.

"With News Showcase and the new integration of editorial content like from Spiegel, Google shows that they are serious about supporting quality journalism in Germany. We are happy to be part of it from the start," said Stefan Ottlitz, managing director of the Spiegel Group.

The European Publishers Council (EPC), whose members include News UK, the Guardian, Pearson, the New York Times and Schibsted, however, was not enthusiastic.

"By launching a product, they (Google) can dictate terms and conditions, undermine legislation designed to create conditions for a fair negotiation, while claiming they are helping to fund news production," said EPC Executive Director Angela Mills Wade.

The product builds on a licensing deal with media groups in Australia, Brazil and Germany in June, which also drew a lukewarm response from the EPC.

Google is negotiating with French publishers, among its most vocal critics, while Australia wants to force it and Facebook to share advertising revenue with local media groups.

Google`s funding for news organisations has frustrated other internet publishers, such as weather websites and recipe tools, which say Google has hurt their revenue.

(With Reuters input) 
&nbsp;

In a major development, Google has decided to pay USD 1 billion to publishers globally for their news content. The payment will be made over next three years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the new product called Google News showcase will be launch first in Germany and in Brazil.

In a major development, Google has decided to pay USD 1 billion to publishers globally for their news content. The payment will be made over next three years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the new product called Google News showcase will be launch first in Germany and in Brazil. This has marked a major step that appears to pacify news publishers around the world who have fought Google for compensation for using their content. Google showcase will be rolled out in Belgium, India, Netherlands and other countries. In Germany Google has signed up with German newspapers including Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in Brazil with Folha de S.Paulo, Band and Infobae. "This financial commitment - our biggest to date - will pay publishers to create and curate high-quality content for a different kind of online news experience," Pichai said in a blog post. Google parent Alphabet reported a net profit of $34.3 billion on revenue of almost $162 billion last year. The product, which allows publishers to pick and present their stories, will launch on Google News on Android devices and eventually on Apple devices. "This approach is distinct from our other news products because it leans on the editorial choices individual publishers make about which stories to show readers and how to present them," Pichai said. German publisher the Spiegel Group welcomed the project. "With News Showcase and the new integration of editorial content like from Spiegel, Google shows that they are serious about supporting quality journalism in Germany. We are happy to be part of it from the start," said Stefan Ottlitz, managing director of the Spiegel Group. The European Publishers Council (EPC), whose members include News UK, the Guardian, Pearson, the New York Times and Schibsted, however, was not enthusiastic. "By launching a product, they (Google) can dictate terms and conditions, undermine legislation designed to create conditions for a fair negotiation, while claiming they are helping to fund news production," said EPC Executive Director Angela Mills Wade. The product builds on a licensing deal with media groups in Australia, Brazil and Germany in June, which also drew a lukewarm response from the EPC. Google is negotiating with French publishers, among its most vocal critics, while Australia wants to force it and Facebook to share advertising revenue with local media groups. Google`s funding for news organisations has frustrated other internet publishers, such as weather websites and recipe tools, which say Google has hurt their revenue. (With Reuters input)

Google to pay USD 1 billion to news publishers for their content

After a chaotic and controversial US presidential debate of Tuesday night, Google search results for “move to Canada” spiked in the hours following the debate, as many Americans contemplated abandoning their country for the true north strong and free.

The Presidential debate between Joe Biden and President Trump was an absolute dumpster fire. For 90 minutes both Trump and Biden just yelled at each other in one of the most unpleasant debates in history.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/moderator-of-us-elections-debate-snaps-at-trump-for-speaking-out-of-time-331319">Also read:Moderator of US elections debate snaps at Trump for speaking out of time</a>

The Trump-Biden debate had a lot of Americans wanting to make way for the northern border, or at least writing or tweeting about it.&nbsp;

Queries for “how to apply for Canadian citizenship” skyrocketed about an hour into the yelling match between the two men, peaking around 10:30 p.m., according to Google.

The search was most popular in the state of Massachusetts, followed by Ohio and Michigan.

Meanwhile, the organizers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden engaged in a 'chaotic' debate.

The first presidential debate of the US elections 2020 were nothing less than a chaos of three men talking at the same time, of which one was trying to take his turn and the moderator was simply asking to establish order. This was one of rare times — probably the first — when the moderator had to ask a candidate that their campaign manager had agreed to rules which were being flouted by the candidate.

The debate's chaos and lack of order was highly criticised. While the Democrats blamed Trump for constant interruptions, and the Republicans defended the President by claiming it to be Biden's fault for saying 'absurd' statements, the Debate Commission has decided to put it behind them and prepare for the next debate. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

After a chaotic and controversial US presidential debate of Tuesday night, Google search results for “move to Canada” spiked in the hours following the debate, as many Americans contemplated abandoning their country for the true north strong and free.

After a chaotic and controversial US presidential debate of Tuesday night, Google search results for “move to Canada” spiked in the hours following the debate, as many Americans contemplated abandoning their country for the true north strong and free. The Presidential debate between Joe Biden and President Trump was an absolute dumpster fire. For 90 minutes both Trump and Biden just yelled at each other in one of the most unpleasant debates in history. Also read:Moderator of US elections debate snaps at Trump for speaking out of time The Trump-Biden debate had a lot of Americans wanting to make way for the northern border, or at least writing or tweeting about it. Queries for “how to apply for Canadian citizenship” skyrocketed about an hour into the yelling match between the two men, peaking around 10:30 p.m., according to Google. The search was most popular in the state of Massachusetts, followed by Ohio and Michigan. Meanwhile, the organizers of the US presidential debate were left speechless after the US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden engaged in a 'chaotic' debate. The first presidential debate of the US elections 2020 were nothing less than a chaos of three men talking at the same time, of which one was trying to take his turn and the moderator was simply asking to establish order. This was one of rare times — probably the first — when the moderator had to ask a candidate that their campaign manager had agreed to rules which were being flouted by the candidate. The debate's chaos and lack of order was highly criticised. While the Democrats blamed Trump for constant interruptions, and the Republicans defended the President by claiming it to be Biden's fault for saying 'absurd' statements, the Debate Commission has decided to put it behind them and prepare for the next debate. (With inputs from agencies)

After US presidential debate, Google search surge for ‘how to apply for Canadian citizenship’

Big tech firms may be complying to China's confidential&nbsp;requests and handling the data of Hong Kong users to the autocratic country, as per a senior US state department official.

The allegation of cooperation between Hong Kong authorities and major technology company comes after China passed a controversial security law in Hong Kong according to which authorities can demand user sensitive data and threaten action if their request is denied.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-google-twitter-block-hong-kong-govt-from-accessing-user-data-311243">Facebook, Google, Twitter block Hong Kong govt from accessing user data</a>

“There is a possibility that things are happening but because of the restrictions put on by the Hong Kong authorities, they [companies] would not be able to divulge this,” the state department official said.

US tech giants face a reckoning over how Hong Kong's security law will reshape their businesses, with their suspension of processing government requests for user data a stop-gap measure as they weigh options, people close to the industry say.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/hong-kong-google-facebook-and-twitter-resist-sharing-of-data-311313/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

While Hong Kong is not a significant market for firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, they have used it as a perch to reach deep-pocketed advertisers in mainland China, where many of their services are blocked.

But the companies are now in the crosshairs of a national security law that gives China authority to demand that they turn over user data or censor content seen to violate the law - even when posted from abroad.

“As we would with any new legislation, we are reviewing the new law to understand its implications. In the past, we’ve typically received only a relatively small number of requests from Hong Kong authorities, but we are pausing our responses to these requests as we conduct our review,” software and application developer Microsoft said in a statement.

"These companies have to totally reassess the liability of having a presence in Hong Kong," Charles Mok, a legislator who represents the technology industry in Hong Kong said.

If they refuse to cooperate with government requests, he said, authorities "could go after them and take them to court and fine them, or imprison their principals in Hong Kong".

The US internet firms are no strangers to governments demands regarding content and user information, and generally say they are bound by local laws.

The companies have often used a technique known as "geo-blocking" to restrict content in a particular country without removing it altogether.

But the sweeping language of Hong Kong's new law could mean such measures won't be enough. Authorities will no longer need to get court orders before requesting assistance or information, analysts said.

Big tech firms may be complying to China's confidential requests and handling the data of Hong Kong users to the autocratic country, as per a senior US state department official.

Big tech firms may be complying to China's confidential requests and handling the data of Hong Kong users to the autocratic country, as per a senior US state department official. The allegation of cooperation between Hong Kong authorities and major technology company comes after China passed a controversial security law in Hong Kong according to which authorities can demand user sensitive data and threaten action if their request is denied. Also read: Facebook, Google, Twitter block Hong Kong govt from accessing user data “There is a possibility that things are happening but because of the restrictions put on by the Hong Kong authorities, they [companies] would not be able to divulge this,” the state department official said. US tech giants face a reckoning over how Hong Kong's security law will reshape their businesses, with their suspension of processing government requests for user data a stop-gap measure as they weigh options, people close to the industry say. While Hong Kong is not a significant market for firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, they have used it as a perch to reach deep-pocketed advertisers in mainland China, where many of their services are blocked. But the companies are now in the crosshairs of a national security law that gives China authority to demand that they turn over user data or censor content seen to violate the law - even when posted from abroad. “As we would with any new legislation, we are reviewing the new law to understand its implications. In the past, we’ve typically received only a relatively small number of requests from Hong Kong authorities, but we are pausing our responses to these requests as we conduct our review,” software and application developer Microsoft said in a statement. "These companies have to totally reassess the liability of having a presence in Hong Kong," Charles Mok, a legislator who represents the technology industry in Hong Kong said. If they refuse to cooperate with government requests, he said, authorities "could go after them and take them to court and fine them, or imprison their principals in Hong Kong". The US internet firms are no strangers to governments demands regarding content and user information, and generally say they are bound by local laws. The companies have often used a technique known as "geo-blocking" to restrict content in a particular country without removing it altogether. But the sweeping language of Hong Kong's new law could mean such measures won't be enough. Authorities will no longer need to get court orders before requesting assistance or information, analysts said.

Big tech companies may be handling data of Hong Kong users to China

Written by: Sanjeev Roy

Before Covid (BC) brand collaboration meant that two or more non-competing brands would come together – this was often done purely for promotional gains. &nbsp;

The Covid Era (CE) has, however, brought with it a new wave of not just inter-category but also intra-category brand collaborations – brands that were historically considered “competitors” are actually working together now. Consider this, rival pharma companies in India are working in tandem to ensure that life-saving drugs reach all markets even as they knowingly give up on a part of their competitive advantage.&nbsp;

Or consider this, Apple and Google (both in the past, made too much effort in finding innovative ways of blocking each other’s services) decided to collaborate to create contact tracing solutions.

Examples are aplenty: AstraZeneca and GSK, arch-rivals in the UK pharma industry, collaborating with the University of Cambridge to assist the government in COVID-19 testing efforts; beverage rivals Pernod Ricard, Budweiser, Carlsberg, Remy Martin, have collaborated in launching online clubbing experience in China.

Or consider the many volunteer groups cropping up, where individuals located all over the country were working in tandem to help people in various crises such as the migrant crisis during the lockdown, or floods in Assam and Kerala, cyclone in Bengal – a group of people having never met in-person before and having no common connection except a passion and willingness to make a change.&nbsp;

Perhaps it is one more of the CE paradoxes that we are now seeing: the physical coming together of people has been largely limited due to lockdowns and safety concerns and yet virtual collaborations – driven by common passion and innovative solutions, are on the rise.&nbsp;

On the one hand are governments and organizations who are erecting bigger and thicker walls and on the other are the academia, businesses and individuals who are collaborating, sharing and creating innovative solutions, more than ever before.

At first glance, it might appear almost counterintuitive that brands in times of such economic difficulty - instead of pushing harder to outdo the competitors – are collaborating with them.&nbsp;

Why&nbsp;Now? 
&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>For many it might simply be self-interest.&nbsp;With bars and restaurants closed and e-commerce on the rise, the beverage companies, a music label and an ecom site, found that together they could achieve more than they could individually. Carlsberg and Budweiser, who in any case sit in the same bar shelf, found more joy in raising a toast together than in clashing swords.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>The pharma companies found their distribution networks totally disrupted during the first lockdown. Cries of help from kidney transplant patients in Ranchi for the lifesaving drug of one company or a cancer patient in Dharamshala for the drugs of the other company, could only be met if they relied on each other to share costs of a chartered airplane or use each other’s distribution strengths in different areas. Not only did they save lives, but they also managed to retain valuable customers. These are big chasms that have been crossed and organisations could start seeing long term merit in collaborating on certain aspects rather than competing.</li>
	<li>Homo Sapiens are social animals. For us, connecting with others is a natural urge. We have been forced into isolation and fear and uncertainty is high. At a time like this, seeking out others is natural.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>At Future Forward, the virtual group&nbsp;of scenario planning&nbsp;enthusiasts (who co- authored Here Today Here Tomorrow), seeking answers and trying to make sense of the future, is our way of coping with uncertainty and fear. We do it as a collective instead of individually. Instinct has driven collaboration, on what is primarily an intellectual pursuit.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Consider this analogy: Onam Sadya (traditional vegetarian dishes served on a banana leaf in Kerala for Onam) reimagined as a mélange of Malayali and Bengali vegetarian dishes to create a new, unique experience; conceived as one meal but cooked by two chefs specializing in each cuisine. The Malayali Chef and the Bengali Chef, looking to remain interesting and relevant in a changed market, seek each other out and create an experience that stands out. Alone is scary, together is less so.</li>
</ul>

This is a time that needs us to be together. The problem is large and those with muscle have to unite and contribute. The solutions are needed fast. This is beyond profits. Glaxo, AstraZenaca, Oxford, Serum Institute of India, WHO and a whole host of others have to pull together to solve a global problem, fast. Apple and Google have to combine resources.

&nbsp;

Is this sustainable?

The biggest benefit is that of survival – not being a part of the solution will mean that customers will write off the brands sooner rather than later.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/chinese-scientist-says-covid-19-was-created-by-chinas-military-327862">Chinese scientist says covid-19 was created by China’s military</a> 
 
Innovative outputs, synergies, new markets, engaged consumers, solutions at scale are the benefits that can outlive the pandemic. To keep it working though organisations and individuals have to be mindful of what has worked so far:

<ul>
	<li>Shared purpose, the will to make a difference and common goals have never been more important. Apple and Google sit at the same table because they both share the same purpose of finding solutions for dealing with the pandemic. This is what their stakeholders want as well. At Future Forward we are united by our common enthusiasm for scenario planning and making sense of the future. We had common goals, a paper on trends first and then the book.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Say bye to ego and welcome humility. If AstraZeneca were to try to steal the thunder for itself and not acknowledge its partners, the collaboration is bound to run into trouble. For corporations and nations, this is a new muscle to exercise. Individuals collaborating would also do well to remember this. The edifice of success has been built around claiming the glory and the spoils. Implicit in collaboration is sharing and generosity. The belief that as each collaborator gets stronger, the entire collaboration benefits.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

The virus while creating a distanced world, has opened the doors on many new connections. Nature has once again knocked us hard on the head, teaching us lessons that can create a more beautiful, just and happy world.

Sanjeev Roy is an Executive Coach, OD Consultant and Co-Author of ‘Here Today Here Tomorrow’&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Written by: Sanjeev Roy Before Covid (BC) brand collaboration meant that two or more non-competing brands would come together – this was often done purely for promotional gains.

Written by: Sanjeev Roy Before Covid (BC) brand collaboration meant that two or more non-competing brands would come together – this was often done purely for promotional gains. The Covid Era (CE) has, however, brought with it a new wave of not just inter-category but also intra-category brand collaborations – brands that were historically considered “competitors” are actually working together now. Consider this, rival pharma companies in India are working in tandem to ensure that life-saving drugs reach all markets even as they knowingly give up on a part of their competitive advantage. Or consider this, Apple and Google (both in the past, made too much effort in finding innovative ways of blocking each other’s services) decided to collaborate to create contact tracing solutions. Examples are aplenty: AstraZeneca and GSK, arch-rivals in the UK pharma industry, collaborating with the University of Cambridge to assist the government in COVID-19 testing efforts; beverage rivals Pernod Ricard, Budweiser, Carlsberg, Remy Martin, have collaborated in launching online clubbing experience in China. Or consider the many volunteer groups cropping up, where individuals located all over the country were working in tandem to help people in various crises such as the migrant crisis during the lockdown, or floods in Assam and Kerala, cyclone in Bengal – a group of people having never met in-person before and having no common connection except a passion and willingness to make a change. Perhaps it is one more of the CE paradoxes that we are now seeing: the physical coming together of people has been largely limited due to lockdowns and safety concerns and yet virtual collaborations – driven by common passion and innovative solutions, are on the rise. On the one hand are governments and organizations who are erecting bigger and thicker walls and on the other are the academia, businesses and individuals who are collaborating, sharing and creating innovative solutions, more than ever before. At first glance, it might appear almost counterintuitive that brands in times of such economic difficulty - instead of pushing harder to outdo the competitors – are collaborating with them. Why Now? For many it might simply be self-interest. With bars and restaurants closed and e-commerce on the rise, the beverage companies, a music label and an ecom site, found that together they could achieve more than they could individually. Carlsberg and Budweiser, who in any case sit in the same bar shelf, found more joy in raising a toast together than in clashing swords. The pharma companies found their distribution networks totally disrupted during the first lockdown. Cries of help from kidney transplant patients in Ranchi for the lifesaving drug of one company or a cancer patient in Dharamshala for the drugs of the other company, could only be met if they relied on each other to share costs of a chartered airplane or use each other’s distribution strengths in different areas. Not only did they save lives, but they also managed to retain valuable customers. These are big chasms that have been crossed and organisations could start seeing long term merit in collaborating on certain aspects rather than competing. Homo Sapiens are social animals. For us, connecting with others is a natural urge. We have been forced into isolation and fear and uncertainty is high. At a time like this, seeking out others is natural. At Future Forward, the virtual group of scenario planning enthusiasts (who co- authored Here Today Here Tomorrow), seeking answers and trying to make sense of the future, is our way of coping with uncertainty and fear. We do it as a collective instead of individually. Instinct has driven collaboration, on what is primarily an intellectual pursuit. Consider this analogy: Onam Sadya (traditional vegetarian dishes served on a banana leaf in Kerala for Onam) reimagined as a mélange of Malayali and Bengali vegetarian dishes to create a new, unique experience; conceived as one meal but cooked by two chefs specializing in each cuisine. The Malayali Chef and the Bengali Chef, looking to remain interesting and relevant in a changed market, seek each other out and create an experience that stands out. Alone is scary, together is less so. This is a time that needs us to be together. The problem is large and those with muscle have to unite and contribute. The solutions are needed fast. This is beyond profits. Glaxo, AstraZenaca, Oxford, Serum Institute of India, WHO and a whole host of others have to pull together to solve a global problem, fast. Apple and Google have to combine resources. Is this sustainable? The biggest benefit is that of survival – not being a part of the solution will mean that customers will write off the brands sooner rather than later. Also Read | Chinese scientist says covid-19 was created by China’s military Innovative outputs, synergies, new markets, engaged consumers, solutions at scale are the benefits that can outlive the pandemic. To keep it working though organisations and individuals have to be mindful of what has worked so far: Shared purpose, the will to make a difference and common goals have never been more important. Apple and Google sit at the same table because they both share the same purpose of finding solutions for dealing with the pandemic. This is what their stakeholders want as well. At Future Forward we are united by our common enthusiasm for scenario planning and making sense of the future. We had common goals, a paper on trends first and then the book. Say bye to ego and welcome humility. If AstraZeneca were to try to steal the thunder for itself and not acknowledge its partners, the collaboration is bound to run into trouble. For corporations and nations, this is a new muscle to exercise. Individuals collaborating would also do well to remember this. The edifice of success has been built around claiming the glory and the spoils. Implicit in collaboration is sharing and generosity. The belief that as each collaborator gets stronger, the entire collaboration benefits. The virus while creating a distanced world, has opened the doors on many new connections. Nature has once again knocked us hard on the head, teaching us lessons that can create a more beautiful, just and happy world. Sanjeev Roy is an Executive Coach, OD Consultant and Co-Author of ‘Here Today Here Tomorrow’ (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Collaborate, not compete – lessons from the new normal

Online payment platform Paytm was back in Google Play Store on Friday evening after having been removed for 'violating policies'. The app returned within some hours of its removal from the Google Play Store. &nbsp;

Removal of Paytm from the Play Store hit headlines everywhere on Friday afternoon.&nbsp;

"We don`t allow online casinos or support any unregulated gambling apps that facilitate sports betting. This includes if an app leads consumers to an external website that allows them to participate in paid tournaments to win real money or cash prizes, it is a violation of our policies," Suzanne Frey, Vice President, Product, Android Security and Privacy at Google said on a blog post.

However, the blog post did not explicitly mention Paytm. Reuters reported that Google separately confirmed that the removal of Paytm was indeed for policy violation.

The news made waves everywhere. During the day, Paytm took to Twitter to assure its users that their money was safe.

"Dear Paytm'ers, Paytm Android app is temporarily unavailable on Google's Play Store for new downloads or updates. It will be back very soon. All your money is completely safe, and you can continue to enjoy your Paytm app as normal," tweeted Paytm

"The company had not breached Google policies but was running an offer that gave its users stickers, for payments and money transfers, which could then be used to redeem cashbacks - a move Google deemed as gambling," the Paytm spokesman told Reuters.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/paytm-app-removed-from-google-play-store-is-alleged-violation-of-guidelines-the-reason-328389">Paytm app removed from Google Play Store. Is alleged violation of guidelines the reason?</a>

There has not been any statement so far from Google outlining in detail&nbsp;the way Paytm violated the policies of Play Store.

Around 7 pm on Friday evening, Paytm tweeted suggesting that the app was back in the Play Store.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Update: And we're back! 🥳
— Paytm (@Paytm) <a href="https://twitter.com/Paytm/status/1306950821217816576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Paytm was launched about a decade ago. It got a filip after a tie-up with Uber and a major boost after demonetisation in India in the year 2016. Paytm got the benefit of its early start as Indians suddenly had to move to online payments after currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 were taken out of circulation.

(With agency inputs) 
&nbsp;

Online payment platform Paytm was back in Google Play Store on Friday evening after having been removed for 'violating policies'. The app returned within some hours of its removal from the Google Play Store.

Online payment platform Paytm was back in Google Play Store on Friday evening after having been removed for 'violating policies'. The app returned within some hours of its removal from the Google Play Store. Removal of Paytm from the Play Store hit headlines everywhere on Friday afternoon. "We don`t allow online casinos or support any unregulated gambling apps that facilitate sports betting. This includes if an app leads consumers to an external website that allows them to participate in paid tournaments to win real money or cash prizes, it is a violation of our policies," Suzanne Frey, Vice President, Product, Android Security and Privacy at Google said on a blog post. However, the blog post did not explicitly mention Paytm. Reuters reported that Google separately confirmed that the removal of Paytm was indeed for policy violation. The news made waves everywhere. During the day, Paytm took to Twitter to assure its users that their money was safe. "Dear Paytm'ers, Paytm Android app is temporarily unavailable on Google's Play Store for new downloads or updates. It will be back very soon. All your money is completely safe, and you can continue to enjoy your Paytm app as normal," tweeted Paytm "The company had not breached Google policies but was running an offer that gave its users stickers, for payments and money transfers, which could then be used to redeem cashbacks - a move Google deemed as gambling," the Paytm spokesman told Reuters. Also Read | Paytm app removed from Google Play Store. Is alleged violation of guidelines the reason? There has not been any statement so far from Google outlining in detail the way Paytm violated the policies of Play Store. Around 7 pm on Friday evening, Paytm tweeted suggesting that the app was back in the Play Store. Update: And we're back! 🥳 — Paytm (@Paytm) September 18, 2020 × Paytm was launched about a decade ago. It got a filip after a tie-up with Uber and a major boost after demonetisation in India in the year 2016. Paytm got the benefit of its early start as Indians suddenly had to move to online payments after currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 were taken out of circulation. (With agency inputs)

Paytm back on Google Play Store after getting removed for 'violating policies'

Wall Street's main indexes closed sharply lower on Thursday, marking their deepest one-day dives in months as investors dumped the high-flying&nbsp;technology&nbsp;sector, while economic data highlighted concerns about a long and difficult recovery.

The&nbsp;technology-centric Nasdaq led the declines as its heavyweight stocks took a hit with the biggest drags from companies including Facebook Inc, Apple Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Microsoft Inc and Google-parent Alphabet Inc.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/e-commerce-giant-amazon-will-create-7000-jobs-in-the-united-kingdom-324991" hreflang="en">E-commerce giant Amazon will create 7,000 jobs in the United Kingdom</a>

The five stocks, deemed strong bets because of solid cash positions and continued growth despite the coronavirus crisis, also account for roughly a quarter of the S&amp;P 500's market value and have driven the stock market's narrow&nbsp;technology-led recovery from the pandemic lows hit in March.

The Philadelphia chip index and the S&amp;P tech sector also dropped more than 5 per cent&nbsp;each.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/global-economy-will-take-12-trillion-hit-from-covid-19-international-monetary-fund-308349">Global economy will take $12 trillion hit from COVID-19: International Monetary Fund</a>

The pullback comes a day after the S&amp;P 500 and the Nasdaq closed at record levels and the Dow came within 1.5 per cent of its February peak, powered by fiscal and monetary support hopes for a swift economic recovery. But some participants said investors had become too optimistic.

Earlier in the day, data showed the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, but remained extraordinarily high. The closely watched monthly payrolls report is set for Friday

Separately, a survey showed US&nbsp;services industry growth slowed in August, likely as the boost from the reopening of businesses and fiscal stimulus faded.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 807.77 points, or 2.78 per cent, to close at 28,292.73, the S&amp;P 500 lost 125.78 points, or 3.51 per cent, to 3,455.06 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 598.34 points, or 4.96 per cent, to 11,458.10.

Wall Street's main indexes closed sharply lower on Thursday, marking their deepest one-day dives in months as investors dumped the high-flying technology sector, while economic data highlighted concerns about a long and difficult recovery.

Wall Street's main indexes closed sharply lower on Thursday, marking their deepest one-day dives in months as investors dumped the high-flying technology sector, while economic data highlighted concerns about a long and difficult recovery. The technology-centric Nasdaq led the declines as its heavyweight stocks took a hit with the biggest drags from companies including Facebook Inc, Apple Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Microsoft Inc and Google-parent Alphabet Inc. Also read: E-commerce giant Amazon will create 7,000 jobs in the United Kingdom The five stocks, deemed strong bets because of solid cash positions and continued growth despite the coronavirus crisis, also account for roughly a quarter of the S&P 500's market value and have driven the stock market's narrow technology-led recovery from the pandemic lows hit in March. The Philadelphia chip index and the S&P tech sector also dropped more than 5 per cent each. Also read: Global economy will take $12 trillion hit from COVID-19: International Monetary Fund The pullback comes a day after the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq closed at record levels and the Dow came within 1.5 per cent of its February peak, powered by fiscal and monetary support hopes for a swift economic recovery. But some participants said investors had become too optimistic. Earlier in the day, data showed the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, but remained extraordinarily high. The closely watched monthly payrolls report is set for Friday Separately, a survey showed US services industry growth slowed in August, likely as the boost from the reopening of businesses and fiscal stimulus faded. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 807.77 points, or 2.78 per cent, to close at 28,292.73, the S&P 500 lost 125.78 points, or 3.51 per cent, to 3,455.06 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 598.34 points, or 4.96 per cent, to 11,458.10.

Tech tumble jams Wall Street into reverse; sharpest fall since June

British finance minister Rishi Sunak plans to drop a tax on technology companies such as Facebook and Google because it does not raise much money and could hurt a push for a US trade deal, the Mail on Sunday newspaper said.

Britain introduced the digital services tax in April after slow progress in global negotiations over how to tax tech giants, many of which are US&nbsp;companies.

The tax is expected to raise about 500 million pounds ($654 million) a year for Britain's public finances.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; fullscreen" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" src="https://w3.cdn.anvato.net/player/prod/v3/anvload.html?key=eyJ1IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly92b2Rha20uemVlbmV3cy5jb20vdm9kLzIxMDhXT1lCX1VLX0xPTkRPTl9MSVZFXzZQTS5tcDQvaW5kZXgubTN1OCIsInNoYXJlTGluayI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndpb25ld3MuY29tL3ZpZGVvcy91bml0ZWQta2luZ2RvbXMtZGVidC1yaXNlcy10by1vdmVyLTEwMC1vZi1nZHAtMzIyMjI3IiwicGx1Z2lucyI6eyJnb29nbGVBbmFseXRpY3MiOnsidHJhY2tpbmdJZCI6IlVBLTc4NDAwODA4LTEiLCJldmVudHMiOnsiUExBWUlOR19TVEFSVCI6eyJhbGlhcyI6IlZpZGVvIFBsYXkiLCJjYXRlZ29yeSI6IkFudmF0byBQbGF5ZXIiLCJsYWJlbCI6IkFudmFudG8gVmlkZW8gUGxheWluZyIsIm1ldHJpYyI6IjEifSwiQlVGRkVSX1NUQVJUIjp7ImFsaWFzIjoiVmlkZW8gQnVmZmVyIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnkiOiJBbnZhdG8gUGxheWVyIiwibGFiZWwiOiJBbnZhbnRvIFZpZGVvIEJ1ZmZlciBzdGFydHMiLCJtZXRyaWMiOiIyIn0sIlZJREVPX0NPTVBMRVRFRCI6eyJhbGlhcyI6IlZpZGVvIENvbXBsZXRlIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnkiOiJBbnZhdG8gUGxheWVyIiwibGFiZWwiOiJBbnZhbnRvIFZpZGVvIENvbXBsZXRlZCIsIm1ldHJpYyI6IjQifSwiQURfQlJFQUtfU1RBUlRFRCI6eyJhbGlhcyI6IlZpZGVvIEFkdnQgQnJlYWsiLCJjYXRlZ29yeSI6IkFudmF0byBQbGF5ZXIifX19LCJkZnAiOnsiY2xpZW50U2lkZSI6eyJhZFRhZ1VybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vcHViYWRzLmcuZG91YmxlY2xpY2submV0L2dhbXBhZC9saXZlL2Fkcz9pdT0vMTE0NDA0NjUvV2lvbmV3c19WaWRlby9XaW9uZXdzX1ByZXJvbGwmZGVzY3JpcHRpb25fdXJsPVtwbGFjZWhvbGRlcl0mZW52PXZwJmltcGw9cyZjb3JyZWxhdG9yPSZ0ZmNkPTAmbnBhPTAmZ2RmcF9yZXE9MSZvdXRwdXQ9dmFzdCZzej02NDB4NDgwJnVudmlld2VkX3Bvc2l0aW9uX3N0YXJ0PTEifX0sImhlYWx0aEFuYWx5dGljcyI6e319LCJodG1sNSI6dHJ1ZX0%3D" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

That represents only a fraction of the 200 billion pounds in extra debt the country has racked up since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The tax is also a potential impediment to a post-Brexit bilateral trade deal between Britain and the United States. 
France and other countries have adopted or are considering similar taxes.

No one was immediately available for comment at Britain's finance ministry.

The Mail on Sunday quoted a finance ministry representative as saying: "We've been clear it's a temporary tax that will be removed once an appropriate global solution is in place, and we continue to work with our international partners to reach that goal."

British finance minister Rishi Sunak plans to drop a tax on technology companies such as Facebook and Google because it does not raise much money and could hurt a push for a US trade deal, the Mail on Sunday newspaper said.

British finance minister Rishi Sunak plans to drop a tax on technology companies such as Facebook and Google because it does not raise much money and could hurt a push for a US trade deal, the Mail on Sunday newspaper said. Britain introduced the digital services tax in April after slow progress in global negotiations over how to tax tech giants, many of which are US companies. The tax is expected to raise about 500 million pounds ($654 million) a year for Britain's public finances. × That represents only a fraction of the 200 billion pounds in extra debt the country has racked up since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The tax is also a potential impediment to a post-Brexit bilateral trade deal between Britain and the United States. France and other countries have adopted or are considering similar taxes. No one was immediately available for comment at Britain's finance ministry. The Mail on Sunday quoted a finance ministry representative as saying: "We've been clear it's a temporary tax that will be removed once an appropriate global solution is in place, and we continue to work with our international partners to reach that goal."

UK plans to drop 'Facebook tax': local media

Google has urged YouTubers around the world to complain to Australian authorities as it ratchets up its campaign against a plan to force digital giants to pay for news content.

Alongside pop-ups warning "the way Aussies use Google is at risk", which began appearing for Australian Google users on Monday, the tech titan also urged YouTube creators worldwide to complain to the nation's consumer watchdog.

"The YouTube you know and love is at risk in Australia," the company tweeted from its YouTube Creators account on Monday, also encouraging those outside of Australia to email their concerns to the body behind the plan.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The YouTube you know and love is at risk in Australia. A proposed new law, The News Media Bargaining Code, could have a significant, negative impact on creators in Australia. Your voice matters.→ <a href="https://t.co/gR5Hf81DIH">https://t.co/gR5Hf81DIH</a> <a href="https://t.co/oPnC6fi3If">pic.twitter.com/oPnC6fi3If</a>
— YouTube Creators (@ytcreators) <a href="https://twitter.com/ytcreators/status/1295148502285258753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The landmark measures would include fines worth millions of dollars for non-compliance and would force transparency around the closely guarded algorithms which tech firms use to rank content.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-warns-australia-could-lose-free-search-services-321099">Also read:&nbsp;Google warns Australia could lose free search services</a>

YouTube's boss in the region Gautam Anand, following a similar letter from the managing director of Google in Australia, wrote a message to the platform's creators and artists.

"My primary focus is supporting you and your work to build a thriving creator ecosystem," Anand said.

The proposal would create an "uneven playing field" and allow big news businesses to demand larger shares of money from the platform — taking funds away from smaller creators, he warned.

"The imbalances created by this proposed law could potentially affect all types of Australian creators, far beyond those who focus on news: from vloggers, to educational creators, to music artists and beyond."

The legislation will initially focus on Facebook and Google — two of the world's richest and most powerful companies -- but could eventually apply to any digital platform.

Virus crisis 
Australia's proposals are being closely watched around the world, as regulators increasingly train their focus on the rapidly changing sector.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thai-government-threatens-legal-action-against-facebook-over-posts-criticising-monarchy-320249">Also read:&nbsp;Thai government threatens legal action against Facebook over posts criticising monarchy</a>

News media worldwide have suffered in the digital economy, where big tech firms overwhelmingly capture advertising revenue.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the coronavirus-triggered economic collapse, with dozens of Australian newspapers closed and hundreds of journalists sacked in recent months.

Unlike other countries' so-far unsuccessful efforts to force the platforms to pay for news, the Australian initiative relies on competition law rather than copyright regulations.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which is drafting the government's code of conduct, hit back at Google's open letter saying it "contains misinformation".

The consumer watchdog said the digital giant would "not be required" to share additional user data with the news media or charge Australians to use its free services "unless it chooses to do so".

"The draft code will allow Australian news businesses to negotiate for fair payment for their journalists' work that is included on Google services," it said in a statement.

It has strong support from local media outlets and is expected to be introduced this year.

Google has urged YouTubers around the world to complain to Australian authorities as it ratchets up its campaign against a plan to force digital giants to pay for news content.

Google has urged YouTubers around the world to complain to Australian authorities as it ratchets up its campaign against a plan to force digital giants to pay for news content. Alongside pop-ups warning "the way Aussies use Google is at risk", which began appearing for Australian Google users on Monday, the tech titan also urged YouTube creators worldwide to complain to the nation's consumer watchdog. "The YouTube you know and love is at risk in Australia," the company tweeted from its YouTube Creators account on Monday, also encouraging those outside of Australia to email their concerns to the body behind the plan. The YouTube you know and love is at risk in Australia. A proposed new law, The News Media Bargaining Code, could have a significant, negative impact on creators in Australia. Your voice matters.→ https://t.co/gR5Hf81DIH pic.twitter.com/oPnC6fi3If — YouTube Creators (@ytcreators) August 17, 2020 × The landmark measures would include fines worth millions of dollars for non-compliance and would force transparency around the closely guarded algorithms which tech firms use to rank content. Also read: Google warns Australia could lose free search services YouTube's boss in the region Gautam Anand, following a similar letter from the managing director of Google in Australia, wrote a message to the platform's creators and artists. "My primary focus is supporting you and your work to build a thriving creator ecosystem," Anand said. The proposal would create an "uneven playing field" and allow big news businesses to demand larger shares of money from the platform — taking funds away from smaller creators, he warned. "The imbalances created by this proposed law could potentially affect all types of Australian creators, far beyond those who focus on news: from vloggers, to educational creators, to music artists and beyond." The legislation will initially focus on Facebook and Google — two of the world's richest and most powerful companies -- but could eventually apply to any digital platform. Virus crisis Australia's proposals are being closely watched around the world, as regulators increasingly train their focus on the rapidly changing sector. Also read: Thai government threatens legal action against Facebook over posts criticising monarchy News media worldwide have suffered in the digital economy, where big tech firms overwhelmingly capture advertising revenue. The crisis has been exacerbated by the coronavirus-triggered economic collapse, with dozens of Australian newspapers closed and hundreds of journalists sacked in recent months. Unlike other countries' so-far unsuccessful efforts to force the platforms to pay for news, the Australian initiative relies on competition law rather than copyright regulations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which is drafting the government's code of conduct, hit back at Google's open letter saying it "contains misinformation". The consumer watchdog said the digital giant would "not be required" to share additional user data with the news media or charge Australians to use its free services "unless it chooses to do so". "The draft code will allow Australian news businesses to negotiate for fair payment for their journalists' work that is included on Google services," it said in a statement. It has strong support from local media outlets and is expected to be introduced this year.

Google rallies YouTubers against Australian news payment plan

Igniting a 'gaming-world' war, Apple has decided to block three games of three tech-giants — Microsoft, Facebook and Google — from its App Store.

The list contains&nbsp;Microsoft's Game Pass, Google's Stadia and Facebook's gaming app.

The decision was taken by Apple as the company claims that the three tech-giants did not submit the games individually for review. Apple claimed that their company does not allow apps to feature on their store without a review, and since the companies did not submit individual games for review, Apple decided to block the games that could enable access to these non-reviewed games.

The company issued a statement explaining the reason behind the decision of blocking these games. "Our customers enjoy great apps and games from millions of developers, and gaming services can absolutely&nbsp;launch on the App Store as long as they follow the same set&nbsp;of guidelines applicable to all developers, including submitting games individually for review, and appearing in charts and search.&nbsp;In addition to the App Store, developers can choose to reach&nbsp;all iPhone and iPad users over the web through Safari and other browsers&nbsp;on the App Store."

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg reacted to the news by saying, “Unfortunately, we had to remove gameplay functionality entirely in order to get Apple’s approval on the stand-alone Facebook Gaming app.”

In a Twitter thread, Facebook Gaming announced the launch of&nbsp;standalone Facebook Gaming app. "But for FB game developers and players...we have some bad news. After months of submissions and repeated rejections by Apple, we’ve had to remove instant games entirely from the standalone app," Facebook Gaming tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🍏🎮🧵 
 
1/ Well, we have some good news. We’re launching the standalone Facebook Gaming app today on iOS! Download today 👉 <a href="https://t.co/MhNbh3nOwA">https://t.co/MhNbh3nOwA</a> 
 
We know many creators and fans have been waiting a long time for it, so thanks for sitting tight.
— Facebook Gaming (@FacebookGaming) <a href="https://twitter.com/FacebookGaming/status/1291708615015858176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Microsoft, too, issued a statement that read, "Apple stands alone as the only general purpose platform to deny consumers from cloud gaming and game subscription services like Xbox Game Pass. And it consistently treats gaming apps differently, applying more lenient rules to non-gaming apps even when they include interactive content."

Igniting a 'gaming-world' war, Apple has decided to block three games of three tech-giants — Microsoft, Facebook and Google — from its App Store. The list contains Microsoft's Game Pass, Google's Stadia and Facebook's gaming app.

Igniting a 'gaming-world' war, Apple has decided to block three games of three tech-giants — Microsoft, Facebook and Google — from its App Store. The list contains Microsoft's Game Pass, Google's Stadia and Facebook's gaming app. The decision was taken by Apple as the company claims that the three tech-giants did not submit the games individually for review. Apple claimed that their company does not allow apps to feature on their store without a review, and since the companies did not submit individual games for review, Apple decided to block the games that could enable access to these non-reviewed games. The company issued a statement explaining the reason behind the decision of blocking these games. "Our customers enjoy great apps and games from millions of developers, and gaming services can absolutely launch on the App Store as long as they follow the same set of guidelines applicable to all developers, including submitting games individually for review, and appearing in charts and search. In addition to the App Store, developers can choose to reach all iPhone and iPad users over the web through Safari and other browsers on the App Store." Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg reacted to the news by saying, “Unfortunately, we had to remove gameplay functionality entirely in order to get Apple’s approval on the stand-alone Facebook Gaming app.” In a Twitter thread, Facebook Gaming announced the launch of standalone Facebook Gaming app. "But for FB game developers and players...we have some bad news. After months of submissions and repeated rejections by Apple, we’ve had to remove instant games entirely from the standalone app," Facebook Gaming tweeted. 🍏🎮🧵 1/ Well, we have some good news. We’re launching the standalone Facebook Gaming app today on iOS! Download today 👉 https://t.co/MhNbh3nOwA We know many creators and fans have been waiting a long time for it, so thanks for sitting tight. — Facebook Gaming (@FacebookGaming) August 7, 2020 × Microsoft, too, issued a statement that read, "Apple stands alone as the only general purpose platform to deny consumers from cloud gaming and game subscription services like Xbox Game Pass. And it consistently treats gaming apps differently, applying more lenient rules to non-gaming apps even when they include interactive content."

Apple blocks games from Microsoft, Google, and Facebook; fight gets Twitter-official

India's plan to regulate "non-personal" data has jolted US tech giants Amazon, Facebook and Google, and a group representing them is preparing to push back against the proposals, according to sources and a letter seen by Reuters.

India's plan to regulate "non-personal" data has jolted US tech giants Amazon, Facebook and Google, and a group representing them is preparing to push back against the proposals, according to sources and a letter seen by Reuters. A government-appointed panel in July recommended setting up a regulator for information that is anonymised or devoid of personal details but critical for companies to build their businesses. The panel proposed a mechanism for firms to share data with other entities - even competitors - saying this would spur the digital ecosystem. The report, if adopted by the government, will form the basis of a new law to regulate such data. But the US-India Business Council (USIBC), part of the US Chamber of Commerce, calls imposed data sharing "anathema" to promoting competition and says this undermines investments made by companies to process and collect such information, according to a draft letter for the Indian government. "USIBC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are categorically opposed to mandates that require the sharing of proprietary data," says the USIBC's previously unreported letter, which is likely to be completed and submitted in coming weeks to India's information-technology ministry. "It will also be tantamount to confiscation of investors' assets and undermine intellectual property protections." A USIBC spokeswoman had no comment on the draft letter. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't respond to Reuters queries. The head of the panel, Kris Gopalakrishnan, a founder of Indian technology giant Infosys Ltd, said the group will work with the government to review input from the industry. India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Amazon.com Inc, Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google did not respond to requests for comment. The report is open for public comments until Sept. 13. "Forced data sharing" India's plan to regulate non-personal data is the latest irritant for U.S. tech companies that have been battling tighter e-commerce rules and data storage norms that several countries are also developing. New Delhi and Washington are already at odds on such issues, as well as over digital taxes and tariffs. The USIBC draft letter says "forced data sharing" will limit foreign trade and investment in developing countries, and the panel's proposals run against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's calls for U.S. companies to invest in India. The lobby group expresses concern about the panel's recommendation to mandate local storage for non-personal data, describing this as a "dramatic tightening" of India's international data transfer regime. "These are far-reaching concepts that would have a significant impact on the ability of both Indian and multinational firms to do business in India," Washington-headquartered law firm Covington & Burling said in a note prepared for the USIBC, which was also seen by Reuters. The law firm did not respond to a request for comment. The Indian panel has listed research, national security and policymaking among purposes for which such data should be shared. Three sources said tech executives participated in several meetings in recent weeks to discuss concerns over the report.

India data-curb plan 'anathema', US tech giants plan pushback

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did not hesitate to point out that his company lags behind some competitors on various aspects during an antitrust testimony before a Congressional&nbsp;panel.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-steals-content-from-honest-businesses-sundar-pichai-questioned-316889" hreflang="en">'Google steals content from honest businesses': Sundar Pichai questioned</a>

Zuckerberg pointed out that Amazon is the fastest-growing advertising platform and Google is the biggest.&nbsp;

"In many areas, we are behind our competitors," Zuckerberg said. "The most popular messaging service in the US is iMessage. The fastest growing app is TikTok. The most popular app for video is YouTube. The fastest growing ads platform is Amazon. The largest ads platform is Google. And for every dollar spent on advertising in the US, less than ten cents is spent with us."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WBFDQvIrWYM" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Executives of these tech companies were asked to appear at once as it allows them to spread the burden.&nbsp;

Questions for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday for Google Inc and Facebook Inc were stricter than those of Apple Inc as the case of antitrust is stronger in their case than Tim Cook's company.&nbsp;

Facebook CEO was also questioned about its purchase of Instagram in 2012 and if they acquired it as it was a threat.&nbsp;

According to Zuckerberg, the deal was reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. He went on to say that Instagram at the time was a tiny photo-sharing app rather than a social-media phenomenon.

"People didn't think of them competing with us in that space," he said.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did not hesitate to point out that his company lags behind some competitors on various aspects during an antitrust testimony before a Congressional panel.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did not hesitate to point out that his company lags behind some competitors on various aspects during an antitrust testimony before a Congressional panel. Also read: 'Google steals content from honest businesses': Sundar Pichai questioned Zuckerberg pointed out that Amazon is the fastest-growing advertising platform and Google is the biggest. "In many areas, we are behind our competitors," Zuckerberg said. "The most popular messaging service in the US is iMessage. The fastest growing app is TikTok. The most popular app for video is YouTube. The fastest growing ads platform is Amazon. The largest ads platform is Google. And for every dollar spent on advertising in the US, less than ten cents is spent with us." × Executives of these tech companies were asked to appear at once as it allows them to spread the burden. Questions for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday for Google Inc and Facebook Inc were stricter than those of Apple Inc as the case of antitrust is stronger in their case than Tim Cook's company. Facebook CEO was also questioned about its purchase of Instagram in 2012 and if they acquired it as it was a threat. According to Zuckerberg, the deal was reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. He went on to say that Instagram at the time was a tiny photo-sharing app rather than a social-media phenomenon. "People didn't think of them competing with us in that space," he said.

Mark Zuckerberg suggests Google and Apple are bigger threats than Facebook

Google and Facebook took the sharpest jabs for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday in a much-anticipated congressional hearing that put four of America's most prominent tech CEOs in the hot seat. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-apple-facebook-amazon-tech-giant-ceos-testify-at-us-antitrust-hearing-316845">ALSO READ | Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing</a>

Facebook Inc's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon.com Inc's Jeff Bezos, Google owner Alphabet Inc's Sundar Pichai and Apple Inc's Tim Cook - whose companies have a combined market value of about $5 trillion - parried a range of accusations from lawmakers that they crippled smaller rivals in the quest for market share, via a videoconference hearing. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-have-too-much-power-says-us-antitrust-panel-316826" hreflang="en">Apple, Google, Facebook &amp; Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel</a>

Though it was Bezos' first congressional testimony, he appeared the least fazed. Cook drew fewer barbed questions than Bezos and handled them efficiently. Zuckerberg took the most damage, stumbling at times when confronted with internal emails.

Pichai, CEO of both Alphabet and Google, took the most heat from conservatives on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel and looked the worse for it, as he repeatedly told lawmakers he would be happy to look into various situations and get back to them.

Unfortunately, the Big Tech hearing was decidedly low-tech. Bezos escaped questioning for about an hour in what may have been a tech issue, and was caught on screen reaching for what appeared to be a snack.

Poor audio, flat-screen televisions switching off, and chief executives appearing together as thumbnails on a large screen frustrated viewers and led to mockery of the virtual set-up on Twitter.

Lawmakers descended into shouting at points, with a pandemic twist. One lawmaker shouted: "Put your mask on!"

Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat and chair of the antitrust subcommittee, set the tone when he began by accusing Google of theft.

"Why does Google steal content from honest businesses?" he asked.

Cicilline alleged Google stole reviews from Yelp Inc and said Google threatened to delist Yelp from search results if it objected.

Pichai responded mildly that he would want to know the specifics of the accusation. "We conduct ourselves to the highest standards," he added, disagreeing with the characterization that Google steals content to win users.

Facebook's Zuckerberg took a series of questions about the company's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and whether it was acquired because it was a threat.

Zuckerberg responded that the deal had been reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission and that Instagram at the time was a tiny photo-sharing app rather than a social-media phenomenon. "People didn't think of them competing with us in that space," he said.

In one of the more notable exchanges, Representative Pramila Jayapal pushed Zuckerberg on whether Facebook had ever copied its competitors.

"We've certainly adapted features that others have led in," he said.

"How many companies did Facebook end up copying?" she asked. "Is it less than five? Less than 50?"

"Congresswoman, I don't know," Zuckerberg said.

The hearing was the first time the four CEOs have appeared together before lawmakers.

Jayapal pressed Amazon's Bezos on whether the company used data from third-party sellers in making sales decisions. An Amazon executive previously had denied the practice under oath and was contradicted by a news report.

Bezos answered cautiously that the company had a policy against such actions. "If we found that somebody violated it, we would take action against them," he said.

On the Republican side, Representative Jim Jordan accused the companies of taking a long list of actions that he said showed they try to hamper conservatives from reaching their supporters.

"Big Tech is out to get conservatives," he said.

Jordan's allegations come after President Donald Trump, who has clashed with several of the biggest tech companies, on Wednesday threatened to take action against them with executive orders.

Jordan also pressed Pichai on whether Google would help former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, win in November.

"We support both campaigns. We approach our work in a nonpartisan fashion," Pichai responded.

Republican Representative Matt Gaetz pressed Facebook's Zuckerberg on whether content moderators disadvantaged conservative content.

Zuckerberg said they were trained to be neutral. "We aim to be a platform for all ideas," he said. "I certainly don't want our platform to be run in such a way to have a ... bias."

'STREET FIGHT'

Apple's Cook rejected the notion there is nothing to stop his company from raising the commissions it charges in the App Store.

"I disagree strongly with that," he said. "The competition for developers - they can write their apps for Android or Windows or Xbox or PlayStation. We have fierce competition at the developer side and the customer side, which is essentially so competitive I would describe it as a street fight."

A detailed report with antitrust allegations against the four tech platforms and recommendations on how to tame their market power could be released by late summer or early fall by the committee, senior committee aides said.

Google and Facebook took the sharpest jabs for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday in a much-anticipated congressional hearing that put four of America's most prominent tech CEOs in the hot seat.

Google and Facebook took the sharpest jabs for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday in a much-anticipated congressional hearing that put four of America's most prominent tech CEOs in the hot seat. ALSO READ | Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing Facebook Inc's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon.com Inc's Jeff Bezos, Google owner Alphabet Inc's Sundar Pichai and Apple Inc's Tim Cook - whose companies have a combined market value of about $5 trillion - parried a range of accusations from lawmakers that they crippled smaller rivals in the quest for market share, via a videoconference hearing. Also read: Apple, Google, Facebook & Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel Though it was Bezos' first congressional testimony, he appeared the least fazed. Cook drew fewer barbed questions than Bezos and handled them efficiently. Zuckerberg took the most damage, stumbling at times when confronted with internal emails. Pichai, CEO of both Alphabet and Google, took the most heat from conservatives on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel and looked the worse for it, as he repeatedly told lawmakers he would be happy to look into various situations and get back to them. Unfortunately, the Big Tech hearing was decidedly low-tech. Bezos escaped questioning for about an hour in what may have been a tech issue, and was caught on screen reaching for what appeared to be a snack. Poor audio, flat-screen televisions switching off, and chief executives appearing together as thumbnails on a large screen frustrated viewers and led to mockery of the virtual set-up on Twitter. Lawmakers descended into shouting at points, with a pandemic twist. One lawmaker shouted: "Put your mask on!" Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat and chair of the antitrust subcommittee, set the tone when he began by accusing Google of theft. "Why does Google steal content from honest businesses?" he asked. Cicilline alleged Google stole reviews from Yelp Inc and said Google threatened to delist Yelp from search results if it objected. Pichai responded mildly that he would want to know the specifics of the accusation. "We conduct ourselves to the highest standards," he added, disagreeing with the characterization that Google steals content to win users. Facebook's Zuckerberg took a series of questions about the company's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and whether it was acquired because it was a threat. Zuckerberg responded that the deal had been reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission and that Instagram at the time was a tiny photo-sharing app rather than a social-media phenomenon. "People didn't think of them competing with us in that space," he said. In one of the more notable exchanges, Representative Pramila Jayapal pushed Zuckerberg on whether Facebook had ever copied its competitors. "We've certainly adapted features that others have led in," he said. "How many companies did Facebook end up copying?" she asked. "Is it less than five? Less than 50?" "Congresswoman, I don't know," Zuckerberg said. The hearing was the first time the four CEOs have appeared together before lawmakers. Jayapal pressed Amazon's Bezos on whether the company used data from third-party sellers in making sales decisions. An Amazon executive previously had denied the practice under oath and was contradicted by a news report. Bezos answered cautiously that the company had a policy against such actions. "If we found that somebody violated it, we would take action against them," he said. On the Republican side, Representative Jim Jordan accused the companies of taking a long list of actions that he said showed they try to hamper conservatives from reaching their supporters. "Big Tech is out to get conservatives," he said. Jordan's allegations come after President Donald Trump, who has clashed with several of the biggest tech companies, on Wednesday threatened to take action against them with executive orders. Jordan also pressed Pichai on whether Google would help former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, win in November. "We support both campaigns. We approach our work in a nonpartisan fashion," Pichai responded. Republican Representative Matt Gaetz pressed Facebook's Zuckerberg on whether content moderators disadvantaged conservative content. Zuckerberg said they were trained to be neutral. "We aim to be a platform for all ideas," he said. "I certainly don't want our platform to be run in such a way to have a ... bias." 'STREET FIGHT' Apple's Cook rejected the notion there is nothing to stop his company from raising the commissions it charges in the App Store. "I disagree strongly with that," he said. "The competition for developers - they can write their apps for Android or Windows or Xbox or PlayStation. We have fierce competition at the developer side and the customer side, which is essentially so competitive I would describe it as a street fight." A detailed report with antitrust allegations against the four tech platforms and recommendations on how to tame their market power could be released by late summer or early fall by the committee, senior committee aides said.

'Google steals content from honest businesses': Sundar Pichai questioned

Big Tech executives faced an onslaught of criticism from US lawmakers Wednesday at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation and legal actions against the major internet platforms.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-have-too-much-power-says-us-antitrust-panel-316826" hreflang="en">Apple, Google, Facebook &amp; Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel</a>

CEOs Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google were grilled for more than five hours in the unprecedented joint appearance -- by video -- before a House of Representatives panel investigating market dominance.

While the hearing was called to focus on whether the companies have abused their dominant positions in the market, it veered quickly into other topics including political bias, privacy, dealings with China and how platforms deal with misinformation.

"Simply put, they have too much power," said Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island who chairs the panel conducting a year-long investigation into the business practices of the four companies.

Cicilline said the hearing made clear that the firms "have monopoly power -- some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable."

Congress has no formal role in antitrust enforcement, but several lawmakers appeared intent on revising US laws to deal with the extraordinary market power and dominance of large technology firms.

<h2>Pandemic strength&nbsp;</h2>

Cicilline said the coronavirus outbreak has strengthened the economic clout of the four, saying:&nbsp;"They are likely to emerge (from the pandemic) stronger and more powerful than ever before."

A few comments from lawmakers sought to play down the competitive harms of the companies, which have also won praise for innovating and introducing new technologies and offering lifelines during the virus lockdowns.

"Being big is not inherently bad," said Jim&nbsp;Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. "Quite the opposite, in America you should be rewarded for success.

<h2>Abusing platforms?&nbsp;</h2>

Some lawmakers sought to highlight problems with tech companies operating platforms while competing with rivals on those systems.

Democrat Pramila Jayapal of Washington state question Pichai on how Google operates its ad platform, claiming that this hurts other online services such as news outlets.

Google "is running the marketplace it's acting on the buy side and it's acting on the sell side, which is a major conflict of interest," Jayapal said.

Apple's Cook faced tough questioning over the market power of the company's App Store and its treatment of developers.

"We treat all app developers the same," Cook said. "We do not retaliate or bully people."

Bezos, in his first appearance before a congressional committee, defended&nbsp;Amazon's dealings with third-party sellers after a blistering attack from Cicilline.

"Isn't it true that small businesses have no real option but rely on Amazon to connect with customers to make online sales?" the committee chair asked.

"We've heard from third party sellers again and again during the course of our investigation that Amazon is the only game in town."

Bezos disputed the characterization while adding, "There are a lot of options for small firms..&nbsp; I think we are the best one."

<h2>Playing politics&nbsp;</h2>

President Donald Trump, who has accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring his remarks and being biased against conservatives, weighed in with a tweet shortly before the hearing began, and some Republican lawmakers echoed those remarks.

"If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders," Trump said.&nbsp;

Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, said during the hearing: "I'll just cut to the chase -- Big Tech is out to get conservatives. That's not a suspicion. That's not a hunch. That's a fact."

Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland rejected the argument, saying Facebook and other platforms have failed to contain misinformation from Trump and his supporters, including unverified COVID-19 claims.

"If Facebook is out there trying to repress conservative speech they're doing a terrible job," Raskin said. "I don't understand this endless whining" from Republicans.

<h2>Moving forward&nbsp;</h2>

Some analysts said the hearing could set the stage for revising US antitrust laws, which at present make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being large or dominant without also showing harm to consumers or abuse of market power.

"There was considerable skepticism toward the tech sector as legislators worry about unfair competition and unfair practices," said Darrell West, director of the center for technology innovation at the Brookings Institution.

"If Democrats gain control in the (November elections), this hearing will serve as a blueprint for enhanced regulatory oversight," West said.

Michael Carrier, a Rutgers University professor of antitrust law, said that "the hearing showed that&nbsp;the representatives did their homework" and showed documents hinting at anticompetitive actions.

"I don't think any immediate changes will result from the hearing, but it will provide support for the continuing momentum to challenge these companies," he said.

Avery Gardiner, a former government antitrust lawyer who follows competition for the Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, said the hearing was "an opportunity squandered" which failed to demonstrate specific anticompetitive actions, leaving the matter now to regulatory agencies.

"Congressional hearings, which by their nature are broad-ranging, do not lend themselves well to thoughtful analysis about what Big Tech does that could affect competition," she said.

Big Tech executives faced an onslaught of criticism from US lawmakers Wednesday at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation and legal actions against the major internet platforms.

Big Tech executives faced an onslaught of criticism from US lawmakers Wednesday at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation and legal actions against the major internet platforms. Also read: Apple, Google, Facebook & Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel CEOs Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google were grilled for more than five hours in the unprecedented joint appearance -- by video -- before a House of Representatives panel investigating market dominance. While the hearing was called to focus on whether the companies have abused their dominant positions in the market, it veered quickly into other topics including political bias, privacy, dealings with China and how platforms deal with misinformation. "Simply put, they have too much power," said Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island who chairs the panel conducting a year-long investigation into the business practices of the four companies. Cicilline said the hearing made clear that the firms "have monopoly power -- some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable." Congress has no formal role in antitrust enforcement, but several lawmakers appeared intent on revising US laws to deal with the extraordinary market power and dominance of large technology firms. Pandemic strength Cicilline said the coronavirus outbreak has strengthened the economic clout of the four, saying: "They are likely to emerge (from the pandemic) stronger and more powerful than ever before." A few comments from lawmakers sought to play down the competitive harms of the companies, which have also won praise for innovating and introducing new technologies and offering lifelines during the virus lockdowns. "Being big is not inherently bad," said Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. "Quite the opposite, in America you should be rewarded for success. Abusing platforms? Some lawmakers sought to highlight problems with tech companies operating platforms while competing with rivals on those systems. Democrat Pramila Jayapal of Washington state question Pichai on how Google operates its ad platform, claiming that this hurts other online services such as news outlets. Google "is running the marketplace it's acting on the buy side and it's acting on the sell side, which is a major conflict of interest," Jayapal said. Apple's Cook faced tough questioning over the market power of the company's App Store and its treatment of developers. "We treat all app developers the same," Cook said. "We do not retaliate or bully people." Bezos, in his first appearance before a congressional committee, defended Amazon's dealings with third-party sellers after a blistering attack from Cicilline. "Isn't it true that small businesses have no real option but rely on Amazon to connect with customers to make online sales?" the committee chair asked. "We've heard from third party sellers again and again during the course of our investigation that Amazon is the only game in town." Bezos disputed the characterization while adding, "There are a lot of options for small firms.. I think we are the best one." Playing politics President Donald Trump, who has accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring his remarks and being biased against conservatives, weighed in with a tweet shortly before the hearing began, and some Republican lawmakers echoed those remarks. "If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders," Trump said. Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, said during the hearing: "I'll just cut to the chase -- Big Tech is out to get conservatives. That's not a suspicion. That's not a hunch. That's a fact." Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland rejected the argument, saying Facebook and other platforms have failed to contain misinformation from Trump and his supporters, including unverified COVID-19 claims. "If Facebook is out there trying to repress conservative speech they're doing a terrible job," Raskin said. "I don't understand this endless whining" from Republicans. Moving forward Some analysts said the hearing could set the stage for revising US antitrust laws, which at present make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being large or dominant without also showing harm to consumers or abuse of market power. "There was considerable skepticism toward the tech sector as legislators worry about unfair competition and unfair practices," said Darrell West, director of the center for technology innovation at the Brookings Institution. "If Democrats gain control in the (November elections), this hearing will serve as a blueprint for enhanced regulatory oversight," West said. Michael Carrier, a Rutgers University professor of antitrust law, said that "the hearing showed that the representatives did their homework" and showed documents hinting at anticompetitive actions. "I don't think any immediate changes will result from the hearing, but it will provide support for the continuing momentum to challenge these companies," he said. Avery Gardiner, a former government antitrust lawyer who follows competition for the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the hearing was "an opportunity squandered" which failed to demonstrate specific anticompetitive actions, leaving the matter now to regulatory agencies. "Congressional hearings, which by their nature are broad-ranging, do not lend themselves well to thoughtful analysis about what Big Tech does that could affect competition," she said.

Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing

US-based search engine giant Google has decided that most of its 200,000 employees and contractors should work from home through next June.

"To give employees the ability to plan, we are extending our global voluntary work from home option through June 30, 2021 for roles that don't need to be in the office," Google chief executive Sundar Pichai said in an email to employees.

The remote-work order issued by Pichai also affects other companies owned by Google's corporate parent, Alphabet Inc. It marks a six-month extension of Google's previous plan to keep most of its offices closed through the rest of this year.

The decision could signal similar efforts by other tech firms and large employers to extend the precautionary policy amid growing fears about the risks of returning to workplace normalcy.

Several tech firms have said they expect to reopen their offices gradually in the coming months. Twitter meanwhile has said it would allow all employees to continue on remote work indefinitely.

Meanwhile, the coronavirus has killed a total of 651,902 people and infected 16,396,954, of which 9,512,561 have been declared recovered. More than 100,000 new deaths have been recorded since July 9, and the global count has doubled in just over two months.

(With inputs from agencies)

US-based search engine giant Google has decided that most of its 200,000 employees and contractors should work from home through next June. "To give employees the ability to plan, we are extending our global voluntary work from home option through June 30, 2021 for roles that don't need to be in the office," Google chief executive Sundar Pichai said in an email to employees.

US-based search engine giant Google has decided that most of its 200,000 employees and contractors should work from home through next June. "To give employees the ability to plan, we are extending our global voluntary work from home option through June 30, 2021 for roles that don't need to be in the office," Google chief executive Sundar Pichai said in an email to employees. The remote-work order issued by Pichai also affects other companies owned by Google's corporate parent, Alphabet Inc. It marks a six-month extension of Google's previous plan to keep most of its offices closed through the rest of this year. The decision could signal similar efforts by other tech firms and large employers to extend the precautionary policy amid growing fears about the risks of returning to workplace normalcy. Several tech firms have said they expect to reopen their offices gradually in the coming months. Twitter meanwhile has said it would allow all employees to continue on remote work indefinitely. Meanwhile, the coronavirus has killed a total of 651,902 people and infected 16,396,954, of which 9,512,561 have been declared recovered. More than 100,000 new deaths have been recorded since July 9, and the global count has doubled in just over two months. (With inputs from agencies)

Google extends work from home for employees till June 30, 2021

Google's new transatlantic data cable will connect three countries including the Unites States, United Kingdom and Spain.

The tech giant has announced that it is planning to make an undersea network cable to connect these countries.

Google claims&nbsp;that is incorporating a new&nbsp;technology for the project which it believes will be a significant&nbsp;upgrade of the existing technology. It&nbsp;is expected to be completed by 2022.

According to Google's estimate, underwater data cables are vital to global communications infrastructure as they carry out approximately 98 per cent of the world's data.

The cable used in the project, are named "Grace Hopper", after an American computer scientist and naval rear admiral, will hit the UK at Bude, in Cornwall. It is tech firm's fourth privately owned undersea cable.

<img alt="Google" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="55495455-7cb6-492a-8353-6b3bb3f5a5e7" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/_113662133_uk_usa_spain_cable_640-nc.png" />

The first ever transatlantic telecommunications cable connected Ireland and the US by telegraph was and was built in 1858.

To support the demand for communication and entertainment, around 750,000 miles of cable already run between continents at the moment. It is enough to run around the world almost 17 times.

Internet usage across the globe has skyrocketed around the world since coronavirus&nbsp;restrictions were introduced.&nbsp;

Companies are continuing to look for ways to reach more consumers as demand for high-speed internet increases around the world.

Facebook and Microsoft collectively own&nbsp;telecom&nbsp;company Telxius of the Marea cable, which runs from the US to Spain.

Google's new transatlantic data cable will connect three countries including the Unites States, United Kingdom and Spain. The tech giant has announced that it is planning to make an undersea network cable to connect these countries.

Google's new transatlantic data cable will connect three countries including the Unites States, United Kingdom and Spain. The tech giant has announced that it is planning to make an undersea network cable to connect these countries. Google claims that is incorporating a new technology for the project which it believes will be a significant upgrade of the existing technology. It is expected to be completed by 2022. According to Google's estimate, underwater data cables are vital to global communications infrastructure as they carry out approximately 98 per cent of the world's data. The cable used in the project, are named "Grace Hopper", after an American computer scientist and naval rear admiral, will hit the UK at Bude, in Cornwall. It is tech firm's fourth privately owned undersea cable. The first ever transatlantic telecommunications cable connected Ireland and the US by telegraph was and was built in 1858. To support the demand for communication and entertainment, around 750,000 miles of cable already run between continents at the moment. It is enough to run around the world almost 17 times. Internet usage across the globe has skyrocketed around the world since coronavirus restrictions were introduced. Companies are continuing to look for ways to reach more consumers as demand for high-speed internet increases around the world. Facebook and Microsoft collectively own telecom company Telxius of the Marea cable, which runs from the US to Spain.

Google's new data cable to link US, UK and Spain

Google has received a record fine from Belgium's data protection authority (APD) of 600,000 euros for not complying with European rules on a person's "right to be forgotten" online.

The 600,000 euro penalty is the largest ever imposed by APD, it said on Tuesday, and more than 10 times bigger than the authority's previous record penalty.

Google failed to remove links from its search results to articles which APD said were "obsolete" and damaging to the reputation of a person with a public profile in Belgium.

The news articles, which appeared in results linked to the person's name, related to unfounded complaints of harassment. Google was "negligent" in deciding not to remove the links, given that the company had evidence that the facts were irrelevant and out of date, APD said.

Google said it intends to appeal the decision in court, and had worked hard to "strike a sensible, principled balance between people's rights of access to information and privacy."&nbsp;

"We didn't believe this case met the European Court of Justice's criteria for delisting published journalism from search — we thought it was in the public's interest that this reporting remain searchable," a Google spokesperson said.

The EU's top court enshrined the "right to be forgotten" principle in 2014 when it ruled that people could ask search engines like Google to remove inadequate or irrelevant information from web results appearing under searches for their names.

APD also ordered Google to stop referencing the pages inside Europe, and provide clearer information on which entities are responsible for handling "right to be forgotten" requests.

Google has received a record fine from Belgium's data protection authority (APD) of 600,000 euros for not complying with European rules on a person's "right to be forgotten" online.

Google has received a record fine from Belgium's data protection authority (APD) of 600,000 euros for not complying with European rules on a person's "right to be forgotten" online. The 600,000 euro penalty is the largest ever imposed by APD, it said on Tuesday, and more than 10 times bigger than the authority's previous record penalty. Google failed to remove links from its search results to articles which APD said were "obsolete" and damaging to the reputation of a person with a public profile in Belgium. The news articles, which appeared in results linked to the person's name, related to unfounded complaints of harassment. Google was "negligent" in deciding not to remove the links, given that the company had evidence that the facts were irrelevant and out of date, APD said. Google said it intends to appeal the decision in court, and had worked hard to "strike a sensible, principled balance between people's rights of access to information and privacy." "We didn't believe this case met the European Court of Justice's criteria for delisting published journalism from search — we thought it was in the public's interest that this reporting remain searchable," a Google spokesperson said. The EU's top court enshrined the "right to be forgotten" principle in 2014 when it ruled that people could ask search engines like Google to remove inadequate or irrelevant information from web results appearing under searches for their names. APD also ordered Google to stop referencing the pages inside Europe, and provide clearer information on which entities are responsible for handling "right to be forgotten" requests.

Google hit with 600,000 Euro Belgian privacy fine

More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring onboard international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

The July 6 directive will make it impossible for a large number of international students to participate in the CPT and OPT programmes. The US will "nonsensically be sending...these graduates away to work for our global competitors and compete against us...instead of capitalising on the investment in their education here in the US", they said.

The Curricular Practical Training (CPT) programme permits "alternative work/study, internship, cooperative education or another type of required internship or practicum offered by sponsoring employers through cooperative agreements with a student's school".

On the other hand, the Optional Practical Training (OPT) programme allows up to one year of temporary employment that is directly related to an international student's major area of study, which can occur either before the student graduates and/or after his studies are complete. Students in STEM fields may obtain a two-year extension of their post-graduate OPT, they said.

Closing off more than half of all international students from participating in the recruiting pipeline for American businesses will thus harm companies and the entire economy, and disrupt reliance expectations based on prior policies permitting international students to remain in the US, the firms said.

Asserting that international students contribute substantially to the US economy when they reside in the United States, the legal brief said the departure of these students threatens the ability of US educational institutions to sustain critical mass -- which they need in order to maintain their standards of excellence, to train the American students who will make up the talent pool available to amici and other US companies in the future, and to perform the research that keeps US businesses on the cutting edge of innovation.

"International students are an important source of employees for US businesses while they are students and after they graduate. Finally, they become valuable employees and customers of US businesses whether they remain in the United States or return to their home countries," the companies said.

According to the IT companies, international students residing in the US make a substantial contribution to the country's GDP and have a particularly significant impact in towns and cities where colleges and universities are located. During the 2018-2019 academic year, there were more than 10 lakh such students attending institutions of higher education in the US.

Reducing by half or more the number of international students residing in the United States -- even for a single school year -- will hurt the economy, amplifying the adverse economic effects of the ongoing pandemic. International students contribute billions of dollars to the US economy each year. In the 2018-2019 academic year alone, "international students at US colleges and universities contributed nearly USD 41 billion to the US economy and supported 458,290 jobs", the companies said.

Observing that for every seven international students living in the US, three jobs are supported due to their presence, the companies said international education "ranked as the country's fifth-largest service export" in 2019. Small businesses -- from coffee shops to bookstores -- in communities around the country benefit significantly from the presence of international students, they said.

The companies told the court that if these students are barred from studying in the US until the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic ends, many of them will not return: they will switch to programmes of study elsewhere in the world. And without international students, many the US STEM programmes will contract sharply and ultimately cease to exist. 
&nbsp;

More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course. Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring onboard international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees. The July 6 directive will make it impossible for a large number of international students to participate in the CPT and OPT programmes. The US will "nonsensically be sending...these graduates away to work for our global competitors and compete against us...instead of capitalising on the investment in their education here in the US", they said. The Curricular Practical Training (CPT) programme permits "alternative work/study, internship, cooperative education or another type of required internship or practicum offered by sponsoring employers through cooperative agreements with a student's school". On the other hand, the Optional Practical Training (OPT) programme allows up to one year of temporary employment that is directly related to an international student's major area of study, which can occur either before the student graduates and/or after his studies are complete. Students in STEM fields may obtain a two-year extension of their post-graduate OPT, they said. Closing off more than half of all international students from participating in the recruiting pipeline for American businesses will thus harm companies and the entire economy, and disrupt reliance expectations based on prior policies permitting international students to remain in the US, the firms said. Asserting that international students contribute substantially to the US economy when they reside in the United States, the legal brief said the departure of these students threatens the ability of US educational institutions to sustain critical mass -- which they need in order to maintain their standards of excellence, to train the American students who will make up the talent pool available to amici and other US companies in the future, and to perform the research that keeps US businesses on the cutting edge of innovation. "International students are an important source of employees for US businesses while they are students and after they graduate. Finally, they become valuable employees and customers of US businesses whether they remain in the United States or return to their home countries," the companies said. According to the IT companies, international students residing in the US make a substantial contribution to the country's GDP and have a particularly significant impact in towns and cities where colleges and universities are located. During the 2018-2019 academic year, there were more than 10 lakh such students attending institutions of higher education in the US. Reducing by half or more the number of international students residing in the United States -- even for a single school year -- will hurt the economy, amplifying the adverse economic effects of the ongoing pandemic. International students contribute billions of dollars to the US economy each year. In the 2018-2019 academic year alone, "international students at US colleges and universities contributed nearly USD 41 billion to the US economy and supported 458,290 jobs", the companies said. Observing that for every seven international students living in the US, three jobs are supported due to their presence, the companies said international education "ranked as the country's fifth-largest service export" in 2019. Small businesses -- from coffee shops to bookstores -- in communities around the country benefit significantly from the presence of international students, they said. The companies told the court that if these students are barred from studying in the US until the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic ends, many of them will not return: they will switch to programmes of study elsewhere in the world. And without international students, many the US STEM programmes will contract sharply and ultimately cease to exist.

US student visa rule: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, join lawsuit by Harvard, MIT

Tech giant Google on Monday announced that it will be setting up an India digitisation fund worth $10 billion (approximately ₹ 75,000 crores), which it will be deploying over the next 5-7 years to help India go digital. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/now-sundar-pichai-led-alphabet-joins-trillion-dollar-club-274895">Also read: Now, Sundar Pichai-led Alphabet joins a trillion-dollar club</a> 
 
"We will do this through a mix of equity investment, partnerships and an operational infrastructure ecosystem in India. This is a reflection of our confidence in the future of India and its digital economy," Google CEO Sundar Pichai said during the Google for India virtual conference.

"Second, building new products and services that are deeply relevant to India`s unique needs. Third, empowering businesses to continue or embark on digital transformation. And fourth, leveraging technology and Artificial Intelligence for social good in areas like health, agriculture and education," the Google CEO said.

"This is a reflection of our confidence in the future of India and its digital economy," Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet, said on a webcast during the annual ‘Google for India’ event.

Remembering the old Doordarshan days Pichai said that "Every evening we were drawn to the television by Doordarshan’s special rendition of “Sare Jahan Se Accha.” I tried to explain this to my colleagues the other day, but I eventually gave up and just showed it to them on YouTube."

Union IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad was also present during the conference.

“The way this new fund is going to be used from creating digital infrastructure and creating startups to further enhance their potential is something I would like to watch closely and personally. Our PM has already announced AtmaNirbhar Bharat where Indian entrepreneurs are being asked to create new digital products which are made in India. India's app economy is also growing,” said Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Tech giant Google on Monday announced that it will be setting up an India digitisation fund worth $10 billion (approximately ₹ 75,000 crores), which it will be deploying over the next 5-7 years to help India go digital.

Tech giant Google on Monday announced that it will be setting up an India digitisation fund worth $10 billion (approximately ₹ 75,000 crores), which it will be deploying over the next 5-7 years to help India go digital. Also read: Now, Sundar Pichai-led Alphabet joins a trillion-dollar club "We will do this through a mix of equity investment, partnerships and an operational infrastructure ecosystem in India. This is a reflection of our confidence in the future of India and its digital economy," Google CEO Sundar Pichai said during the Google for India virtual conference. "Second, building new products and services that are deeply relevant to India`s unique needs. Third, empowering businesses to continue or embark on digital transformation. And fourth, leveraging technology and Artificial Intelligence for social good in areas like health, agriculture and education," the Google CEO said. "This is a reflection of our confidence in the future of India and its digital economy," Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet, said on a webcast during the annual ‘Google for India’ event. Remembering the old Doordarshan days Pichai said that "Every evening we were drawn to the television by Doordarshan’s special rendition of “Sare Jahan Se Accha.” I tried to explain this to my colleagues the other day, but I eventually gave up and just showed it to them on YouTube." Union IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad was also present during the conference. “The way this new fund is going to be used from creating digital infrastructure and creating startups to further enhance their potential is something I would like to watch closely and personally. Our PM has already announced AtmaNirbhar Bharat where Indian entrepreneurs are being asked to create new digital products which are made in India. India's app economy is also growing,” said Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. (With inputs from agencies)

Google to invest ₹75,000 crore in India, sets up India Digitisation Fund

Facebook, Google and Twitter said Monday they have stopped giving information on users to Hong Kong's government or police force, following China's imposition of draconian security law, according to AFP report.

Facebook, Google and Twitter said Monday they have stopped giving information on users to Hong Kong's government or police force, following China's imposition of draconian security law, according to AFP report. The pause at leading online social network Facebook and its popular messaging service WhatsApp would remain in place "pending further assessment" of the new national security law, and would include "formal human rights due diligence and consultations with human rights experts," the report said quoting a statement by a Facebook spokesman. "We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and support the right of people to express themselves without fear for their safety or other repercussions," the spokesman said. Also read: Five ways Hong Kong has changed under China's security law Twitter and Google told that they too would not comply with information requests by Hong Kong authorities in the immediate future, the report added. "Like many public interest organizations, civil society leaders and entities, and industry peers, we have grave concerns regarding both the developing process and the full intention of this law," Twitter reportedly told AFP. "Twitter cares and is committed to protecting the people using our service and their freedom of expression." China last week imposed the security law on the restive city of around 7.5 million people, banning acts of subversion, secession, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Also read: China has no legal authority to enact security law for Hong Kong: Bar Association The law stipulates that trials can be held behind closed doors without juries, with offenders subject to a maximum of a life sentence. The legislation, which has sent a wave of fear through the territory, has criminalized dissenting opinions such as calls for independence or autonomy. "Last Wednesday, when the law took effect, we paused production on any new data requests from Hong Kong authorities, and we'll continue to review the details of the new law," a Google spokesperson said. Digital rights group ProPrivacy called Facebook's move "a win for both digital privacy and human rights in the region." "With the stakes so high, and the punishments so severe, it is great news to see big tech companies like WhatsApp pushing back in favour of democracy and freedom of expression," the group said. However, it noted the move could lead to WhatsApp being blocked in Hong Kong, as it has been in mainland China. (With inputs from AFP)

Facebook, Google, Twitter block Hong Kong govt from accessing user data

Google has launched a free training programme for small-to-medium sized news publishers. The programme will help establish their online business who have more recently started developing their digital platforms.

The programme, Digital Growth Programme under the Google News Initiative (GNI), is available in six countries - &nbsp;Spain, the UK, Germany, Italy, Poland and France. 
 
"It's all in local languages, and many more countries to follow in the coming months," the tech giant said in a statement. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-extends-fact-checking-to-image-search-307990">Also Read: Google extends fact-checking to image search</a>

Last month, Google announced a new licensing programme to pay publishers for high-quality content. Google has signed partnerships with Spiegel Group in Germany, Schwartz media in Australia, and Diarios Associados in Brazil. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-to-pay-select-publishers-for-high-quality-news-content-308540">Also Read: Google to pay select publishers for 'high quality' news content</a>

This programme will help participating publishers monetize their content through an enhanced storytelling experience. "Google will also offer to pay for free access for users to read paywalled articles on a publisher's site," the statement said.

The programme comes amid growing calls for internet tech titans to pay for content.

(With inputs from agencies)

Google has launched a free training programme for small-to-medium sized news publishers. The programme will help establish their online business who have more recently started developing their digital platforms.

Google has launched a free training programme for small-to-medium sized news publishers. The programme will help establish their online business who have more recently started developing their digital platforms. The programme, Digital Growth Programme under the Google News Initiative (GNI), is available in six countries - Spain, the UK, Germany, Italy, Poland and France. "It's all in local languages, and many more countries to follow in the coming months," the tech giant said in a statement. Also Read: Google extends fact-checking to image search Last month, Google announced a new licensing programme to pay publishers for high-quality content. Google has signed partnerships with Spiegel Group in Germany, Schwartz media in Australia, and Diarios Associados in Brazil. Also Read: Google to pay select publishers for 'high quality' news content This programme will help participating publishers monetize their content through an enhanced storytelling experience. "Google will also offer to pay for free access for users to read paywalled articles on a publisher's site," the statement said. The programme comes amid growing calls for internet tech titans to pay for content. (With inputs from agencies)

Google launches free digital training for small news publishers

Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai will testify before the House committee in Congress over anti-trust issues in July.

The CEOs of the four biggest technological companies&nbsp;will be questioned regarding their increasing market power, revenue and prominence amid escalating scrutiny from lawmakers according to&nbsp;Shadawn Reddick-Smith, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-anti-trust-regulators-fine-apple-123-billion-286882">French anti-trust regulators fine Apple $1.23 billion</a>

It has not yet been decide whether the executives will appear in person or virtually due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Although most of them have already appeared before the Congress, but this is the first time that the CEOs will do so regarding antitrust concerns. The hearing will be the first time Jeff Bezos will apear before the Congress.

The questions about other issues the executives are also likely to face include&nbsp;Amazon's treatment of its warehouse workers or the spread of hate speech on Facebook and YouTube.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/growing-tide-of-coronavirus-cases-hit-amazon-warehouses-288731">Growing tide of coronavirus cases hit Amazon warehouses</a>

All four companies are being investigated by state or federal departments over an array of issues. While, the Justice Department Prosecutors are preparing a possible antitrust case against Google this year, after an inquiry homed in on its control of advertising technology and the search engine market.

Meanwhile, Amazon's business and Facebook's acquisition of smaller companies are being&nbsp;investigated&nbsp;by the Federal Trade Commission.

Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are the five biggest technology&nbsp;companies according to&nbsp;market value.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai will testify before the House committee in Congress over anti-trust issues in July. The CEOs of the four biggest technological companies will be questioned regarding their increasing market power, revenue and prominence amid escalating scrutiny from lawmakers according to Shadawn Reddick-Smith, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee.

Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai will testify before the House committee in Congress over anti-trust issues in July. The CEOs of the four biggest technological companies will be questioned regarding their increasing market power, revenue and prominence amid escalating scrutiny from lawmakers according to Shadawn Reddick-Smith, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee. Also read: French anti-trust regulators fine Apple $1.23 billion It has not yet been decide whether the executives will appear in person or virtually due to the coronavirus pandemic. Although most of them have already appeared before the Congress, but this is the first time that the CEOs will do so regarding antitrust concerns. The hearing will be the first time Jeff Bezos will apear before the Congress. The questions about other issues the executives are also likely to face include Amazon's treatment of its warehouse workers or the spread of hate speech on Facebook and YouTube. Also read: Growing tide of coronavirus cases hit Amazon warehouses All four companies are being investigated by state or federal departments over an array of issues. While, the Justice Department Prosecutors are preparing a possible antitrust case against Google this year, after an inquiry homed in on its control of advertising technology and the search engine market. Meanwhile, Amazon's business and Facebook's acquisition of smaller companies are being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission. Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are the five biggest technology companies according to market value.

CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google to testify in Congress over antitrust issues

google-0

Google, News on Google, stories on Google, articles on Google, Google stories at Wion, Google news, Google latest news

google 0

Big tech CEOs Senate hearing turns into a political slugfest

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hit by 'bad connection', causes delay in US Senate hearing

Apple, Google and a deal that controls the internet

India-born Judge Amit Mehta to decide on lawsuit against Google

Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google

Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai decline to appear before US Senate

Google launches election-related features weeks before US election 2020

Google is showing Anushka Sharma as Rashid Khan's wife. Here's why

South Korean developers request change in 30% commission for Google Play Store

US Supreme Court puzzled over Google, Oracle high tech copyright clash

Google to pay USD 1 billion to news publishers for their content

After US presidential debate, Google search surge for ‘how to apply for Canadian citizenship’

Big tech companies may be handling data of Hong Kong users to China

Big tech companies may be handling data of Hong Kong users to China

Collaborate, not compete – lessons from the new normal

Paytm back on Google Play Store after getting removed for 'violating policies'

Tech tumble jams Wall Street into reverse; sharpest fall since June

UK plans to drop 'Facebook tax': local media

Google rallies YouTubers against Australian news payment plan

Apple blocks games from Microsoft, Google, and Facebook; fight gets Twitter-official

India data-curb plan 'anathema', US tech giants plan pushback

Mark Zuckerberg suggests Google and Apple are bigger threats than Facebook

'Google steals content from honest businesses': Sundar Pichai questioned

Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing