Google is not celebrating April Fools' day for the second straight year in view of the coronavirus pandemic, an internal email has confirmed.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/these-tech-firms-mark-april-fools-day-for-a-different-reason-374781/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In an internal email, Marvin Chow, Google's VP of global marketing, said that the tech giant will continue the "pause" of April 1's pranks this year as "much of the world" is still facing "serious challenges" due to Covid-19, Business Insider reported.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-says-not-up-to-us-to-dictate-how-news-companies-spend-its-1-billion-374665">Google says 'not up to us' to dictate how news companies spend its $1 billion</a>

"As you will remember, last year we made the decision to pause our longstanding Google tradition of celebrating April Fools' Day, out of respect for all those fighting Covid-19. With much of the world still grappling with serious challenges, we feel we should again pause the jokes for April Fools' Day this year. Like we did last year, we should continue to find appropriate ways to bring moments of joy to our users throughout the year (e.g. Doodles, easter eggs, etc.)," the message further said.&nbsp;

The report said that Google executives sent out an internal email to managers in March in which they urged them to "pause the jokes" due to the coronavirus disruption the last year. &nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-maps-to-suggest-more-eco-friendly-routes-374459">Google Maps to suggest more 'eco-friendly' routes</a>

Recently, Google collaborated with the Indian health ministry and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to provide accurate and science-based information related to Covid-19.&nbsp;

Google is not celebrating April Fools' day for the second straight year in view of the coronavirus pandemic, an internal email has confirmed. Watch | In an internal email, Marvin Chow, Google's VP of global marketing, said that the tech giant will continue the "pause" of April 1's pranks this year as "much of the world" is still facing "serious challenges" due to Covid-19, Business Insider reported.

Google is not celebrating April Fools' day for the second straight year in view of the coronavirus pandemic, an internal email has confirmed. Watch | In an internal email, Marvin Chow, Google's VP of global marketing, said that the tech giant will continue the "pause" of April 1's pranks this year as "much of the world" is still facing "serious challenges" due to Covid-19, Business Insider reported. Also read | Google says 'not up to us' to dictate how news companies spend its $1 billion "As you will remember, last year we made the decision to pause our longstanding Google tradition of celebrating April Fools' Day, out of respect for all those fighting Covid-19. With much of the world still grappling with serious challenges, we feel we should again pause the jokes for April Fools' Day this year. Like we did last year, we should continue to find appropriate ways to bring moments of joy to our users throughout the year (e.g. Doodles, easter eggs, etc.)," the message further said. The report said that Google executives sent out an internal email to managers in March in which they urged them to "pause the jokes" due to the coronavirus disruption the last year. Also read | Google Maps to suggest more 'eco-friendly' routes Recently, Google collaborated with the Indian health ministry and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to provide accurate and science-based information related to Covid-19.

Google not celebrating April Fools' day

There’s no denying social media has been a life-saver during the pandemic, but a reliance on it can have a detrimental effect on your mental health.

How is social media affecting mental health of minors?

Alphabet unit Google will contribute 25 million euros ($29.3 million) to the newly set up European Media and Information Fund to combat fake news, the company said on Wednesday, amid criticism tech giants are not doing enough to debunk online disinformation.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the US election last year spurred a massive spike in misinformation, with some blaming social media for not being more proactive in tackling the issue while regulators have indicated they may take action via heavy-handed restrictions.

The European Media and Information Fund, launched by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute last week, aims to enlist researchers, fact-checkers, not-for-profits and other public interest-oriented bodies to help in the fight against fake news.

"While navigating the uncertainty and challenges of the last year, it has proven more important than ever for people to access accurate information, and sort facts from fiction," Matt Brittin, head of Google's EMEA Business &amp; Operations, said in a blog post.

The fund has a duration of five years. The European Digital Media Observatory, which is a European Commission project set up last year and whose members include fact-checkers and academic researchers, will evaluate and select the projects.

Alphabet unit Google will contribute 25 million euros ($29.3 million) to the newly set up European Media and Information Fund to combat fake news, the company said on Wednesday, amid criticism tech giants are not doing enough to debunk online disinformation.

Alphabet unit Google will contribute 25 million euros ($29.3 million) to the newly set up European Media and Information Fund to combat fake news, the company said on Wednesday, amid criticism tech giants are not doing enough to debunk online disinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic and the US election last year spurred a massive spike in misinformation, with some blaming social media for not being more proactive in tackling the issue while regulators have indicated they may take action via heavy-handed restrictions. The European Media and Information Fund, launched by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute last week, aims to enlist researchers, fact-checkers, not-for-profits and other public interest-oriented bodies to help in the fight against fake news. "While navigating the uncertainty and challenges of the last year, it has proven more important than ever for people to access accurate information, and sort facts from fiction," Matt Brittin, head of Google's EMEA Business & Operations, said in a blog post. The fund has a duration of five years. The European Digital Media Observatory, which is a European Commission project set up last year and whose members include fact-checkers and academic researchers, will evaluate and select the projects.

Google to contribute $29 million to new European Union fund to fight fake news

Four Republican U.S. lawmakers requested on Tuesday that Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google turn over any studies they have done on how their services affect children’s mental health.

The request follows a joint hearing last week of two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees at which the companies’ chief executives discussed their content moderation practices in the wake of the siege on the Capitol in January.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the committee’s ranking Republican, had asked the CEOs at the hearing whether their companies had conducted internal research concerning children’s mental health.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said he believed the company had, while Twitter’s Jack Dorsey said he did not believe so. Google’s Sundar Pichai said the company consulted with outside experts and invested “a lot of time and effort in these areas.”

In letters to the companies on Tuesday, McMorris Rodgers asked for copies of any relevant research or internal communications as well as information on any contractors and partners involved. They also requested any research the companies had done about how competitors’ products affect mental wellness of people under 18 years old.

The requests also cover Google’s YouTube Kids service and Facebook’s Instagram, which is developing a version for people under 13 years old.

The other lawmakers who signed the letter were ranking Republicans on various subcommittees, including Robert Latta, Gus Bilirakis and Morgan Griffith.

They asked for the companies to respond by April 16.

Four Republican U.S. lawmakers requested on Tuesday that Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google turn over any studies they have done on how their services affect children’s mental health.

Four Republican U.S. lawmakers requested on Tuesday that Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google turn over any studies they have done on how their services affect children’s mental health. The request follows a joint hearing last week of two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees at which the companies’ chief executives discussed their content moderation practices in the wake of the siege on the Capitol in January. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the committee’s ranking Republican, had asked the CEOs at the hearing whether their companies had conducted internal research concerning children’s mental health. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said he believed the company had, while Twitter’s Jack Dorsey said he did not believe so. Google’s Sundar Pichai said the company consulted with outside experts and invested “a lot of time and effort in these areas.” In letters to the companies on Tuesday, McMorris Rodgers asked for copies of any relevant research or internal communications as well as information on any contractors and partners involved. They also requested any research the companies had done about how competitors’ products affect mental wellness of people under 18 years old. The requests also cover Google’s YouTube Kids service and Facebook’s Instagram, which is developing a version for people under 13 years old. The other lawmakers who signed the letter were ranking Republicans on various subcommittees, including Robert Latta, Gus Bilirakis and Morgan Griffith. They asked for the companies to respond by April 16.

US lawmakers press Big Tech for internal research on kids' mental health

OAKLAND, Calif. — Google tried to copy Amazon’s playbook to become the shopping hub of the internet, with little success. Now it is trying something different: the anti-Amazon strategy.

Google is trying to present itself as a cheaper and less restrictive option for independent sellers. And it is focused on driving traffic to sellers’ sites, not selling its own version of products as Amazon does.

In the last year, Google eliminated fees for merchants and allowed sellers to list their wares in its search results for free. It is also trying to make it easier for small, independent shops to upload their inventory of products to appear in search results and buy ads on Google by teaming up with Shopify, which powers online stores for 1.7 million merchants who sell directly to consumers.

But like Google’s many attempts during its two-decade quest to compete with Amazon, this one shows little sign of working. Google has nothing as alluring as the $295 billion that passed through Amazon’s third-party marketplace in 2020. The amount of goods people buy on Google is “very small” by comparison — probably around $1 billion, said Juozas Kaziukenas, founder of Marketplace Pulse, a research company.

Amazon is a fixture in the lives of many Americans. It has usurped Google as the starting point for shoppers and has become equally essential for marketers. Amazon’s global advertising business grew 30% to $17.6 billion in 2020, trailing only Google and Facebook in the United States.

But as the pandemic has forced many stores to go online, it has created a new opening for Google to woo sellers who feel uneasy about building their businesses on Amazon.

Christina Stang, 33, opened Fritzy’s Roller Skate Shop near Pacific Beach in San Diego last March. Shelter-in-place orders forced her to set up an online storefront on Shopify.

She got lucky. She was sitting on a huge supply of skates when demand surged as skating videos became popular on TikTok during the pandemic.

She linked her Shopify account to Google’s retail software and started buying so-called smart shopping ads. Working within an allotted budget, Google’s algorithms pick where to place ads and what products to feature. In 2020, she spent $1,800 on the ads, which were viewed 3.6 million times and led to $247,000 in sales, she said.

She considered selling her products on Amazon’s marketplace, but she worried what Amazon’s fees would mean for her already-thin profit margins. She also liked that Google redirected people to her carefully curated website rather than keeping them inside its own store as Amazon does.

“I could sell on Amazon and not make any real money but have a bigger online presence,” Stang said. “It didn’t seem like a great idea.”

Recently, however, she has experienced one of the drawbacks of being stuck in the middle of the partnership between Google and Shopify. Her shop has been unable to list any products since January because Google suspended her account. It said her shipping costs appeared more expensive on Google than on her Shopify-powered website, even though they were no different.

Shopify told her that it was a Google issue. Google’s customer service representatives recommended that she hire a web designer. She continues to manage without Google, but it has tainted her largely positive experience.

“This has completely cut me off at the knees,” she said. “I’m a small business, and I don’t have hundreds or thousands of dollars to resolve this.”

Sellers often complain about Amazon’s fees — which can account for one-quarter of every sale, not including the cost of advertising — and the pressure to spend more to succeed. Merchants on Amazon do not have a direct relationship with their customers, limiting their ability to communicate with them and to generate future business. And because everything is contained within the Amazon world, it is harder to create a unique look and feel that express a brand’s identity the way companies can on their own websites.

But since 2002, when it started a price comparison site called Froogle, a confusing play on the word “frugal” that required a rebranding five years later, Google has struggled to chart a cohesive vision for its shopping experience.

It tried to challenge Amazon directly by piloting its own same-day delivery service, but it shuttered the project as costs ballooned. It tried to forge partnerships with traditional retail giants, only to see the alliances wilt from a lack of sales. It built its own marketplace to make it easier for shoppers to buy the things they find on Google but was not able to break consumers from their Amazon habit.

Last year, Google brought in Bill Ready, a former chief operating officer at PayPal, to fill a new senior position and spearhead an overhaul of its shopping strategy.

Around the time of his hiring, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, warned senior executives that the new approach could mean a short-term crimp in advertising revenue, according to two people familiar with the conversations, who requested anonymity because they were not allowed to discuss them publicly. He asked teams to support the e-commerce push because it was a company priority.

When the pandemic spurred huge demand for online shopping, Google eliminated fees, allowing retailers to list products for free and walking back a 2012 decision to allow only advertisers to display goods on its shopping site.

Three months after hiring Ready, Google said the free listings would show up on its main search results. Then Google said customers could buy products directly from merchants on Google with no commissions. It also said Google would open its platform to third parties like Shopify and PayPal so that sellers could continue to use their existing tools to manage inventory and orders and processing payments.

The partnership with Shopify was especially meaningful because hundreds of thousands of small businesses have flocked to the software platform during the pandemic. About 9% of U.S. online shopping sales took place on storefronts powered by Shopify as of October, according to research firm eMarketer. That was up from 6% the prior year and second only to Amazon’s share of 37%.

Harley Finkelstein, Shopify’s president, said Google and Shopify were developing new ways for merchants to sell through Google services, such as experiments to allow customers to buy items directly on YouTube and to display what products stores are carrying in Google Maps.

Ready walked a fine line when it came to Amazon, which is a big buyer of ads on Google, but he made it clear he believed Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce posed a threat to other merchants.

“Nobody wants to live in a world where there is only one place to buy something, and retailers don’t want to be dependent on gatekeepers,” he said in an interview.

Google said it had increased the number of sellers appearing in its results by 80% in 2020, with the most significant growth coming from small and midsize businesses. And existing retailers are listing more products.

Overstock.com, a seller of discount furniture and home bedding, said it had paid to list products on Google in the past. But now that listings are free, Overstock is adding low-margin products, too.

“When all shopping starts and stops at Amazon, that’s bad for the industry,” said Jonathan E. Johnson, Overstock’s chief executive. “It’s nice to have another 800-pound tech gorilla in this space.”

What remains unclear is whether increasing the number of merchants and listings on Google will ultimately change online shopping habits.

BACtrack, a maker of breathalyzers, has more than doubled its advertising spending on Amazon in the last two years because that is where the customers are, it said, while it has spent 6% less advertising its products on Google.

“It seems like more and more people are skipping Google and going straight to Amazon,” said Keith Nothacker, chief executive of BACtrack.

OAKLAND, Calif. — Google tried to copy Amazon’s playbook to become the shopping hub of the internet, with little success. Now it is trying something different: the anti-Amazon strategy.

OAKLAND, Calif. — Google tried to copy Amazon’s playbook to become the shopping hub of the internet, with little success. Now it is trying something different: the anti-Amazon strategy. Google is trying to present itself as a cheaper and less restrictive option for independent sellers. And it is focused on driving traffic to sellers’ sites, not selling its own version of products as Amazon does. In the last year, Google eliminated fees for merchants and allowed sellers to list their wares in its search results for free. It is also trying to make it easier for small, independent shops to upload their inventory of products to appear in search results and buy ads on Google by teaming up with Shopify, which powers online stores for 1.7 million merchants who sell directly to consumers. But like Google’s many attempts during its two-decade quest to compete with Amazon, this one shows little sign of working. Google has nothing as alluring as the $295 billion that passed through Amazon’s third-party marketplace in 2020. The amount of goods people buy on Google is “very small” by comparison — probably around $1 billion, said Juozas Kaziukenas, founder of Marketplace Pulse, a research company. Amazon is a fixture in the lives of many Americans. It has usurped Google as the starting point for shoppers and has become equally essential for marketers. Amazon’s global advertising business grew 30% to $17.6 billion in 2020, trailing only Google and Facebook in the United States. But as the pandemic has forced many stores to go online, it has created a new opening for Google to woo sellers who feel uneasy about building their businesses on Amazon. Christina Stang, 33, opened Fritzy’s Roller Skate Shop near Pacific Beach in San Diego last March. Shelter-in-place orders forced her to set up an online storefront on Shopify. She got lucky. She was sitting on a huge supply of skates when demand surged as skating videos became popular on TikTok during the pandemic. She linked her Shopify account to Google’s retail software and started buying so-called smart shopping ads. Working within an allotted budget, Google’s algorithms pick where to place ads and what products to feature. In 2020, she spent $1,800 on the ads, which were viewed 3.6 million times and led to $247,000 in sales, she said. She considered selling her products on Amazon’s marketplace, but she worried what Amazon’s fees would mean for her already-thin profit margins. She also liked that Google redirected people to her carefully curated website rather than keeping them inside its own store as Amazon does. “I could sell on Amazon and not make any real money but have a bigger online presence,” Stang said. “It didn’t seem like a great idea.” Recently, however, she has experienced one of the drawbacks of being stuck in the middle of the partnership between Google and Shopify. Her shop has been unable to list any products since January because Google suspended her account. It said her shipping costs appeared more expensive on Google than on her Shopify-powered website, even though they were no different. Shopify told her that it was a Google issue. Google’s customer service representatives recommended that she hire a web designer. She continues to manage without Google, but it has tainted her largely positive experience. “This has completely cut me off at the knees,” she said. “I’m a small business, and I don’t have hundreds or thousands of dollars to resolve this.” Sellers often complain about Amazon’s fees — which can account for one-quarter of every sale, not including the cost of advertising — and the pressure to spend more to succeed. Merchants on Amazon do not have a direct relationship with their customers, limiting their ability to communicate with them and to generate future business. And because everything is contained within the Amazon world, it is harder to create a unique look and feel that express a brand’s identity the way companies can on their own websites. But since 2002, when it started a price comparison site called Froogle, a confusing play on the word “frugal” that required a rebranding five years later, Google has struggled to chart a cohesive vision for its shopping experience. It tried to challenge Amazon directly by piloting its own same-day delivery service, but it shuttered the project as costs ballooned. It tried to forge partnerships with traditional retail giants, only to see the alliances wilt from a lack of sales. It built its own marketplace to make it easier for shoppers to buy the things they find on Google but was not able to break consumers from their Amazon habit. Last year, Google brought in Bill Ready, a former chief operating officer at PayPal, to fill a new senior position and spearhead an overhaul of its shopping strategy. Around the time of his hiring, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, warned senior executives that the new approach could mean a short-term crimp in advertising revenue, according to two people familiar with the conversations, who requested anonymity because they were not allowed to discuss them publicly. He asked teams to support the e-commerce push because it was a company priority. When the pandemic spurred huge demand for online shopping, Google eliminated fees, allowing retailers to list products for free and walking back a 2012 decision to allow only advertisers to display goods on its shopping site. Three months after hiring Ready, Google said the free listings would show up on its main search results. Then Google said customers could buy products directly from merchants on Google with no commissions. It also said Google would open its platform to third parties like Shopify and PayPal so that sellers could continue to use their existing tools to manage inventory and orders and processing payments. The partnership with Shopify was especially meaningful because hundreds of thousands of small businesses have flocked to the software platform during the pandemic. About 9% of U.S. online shopping sales took place on storefronts powered by Shopify as of October, according to research firm eMarketer. That was up from 6% the prior year and second only to Amazon’s share of 37%. Harley Finkelstein, Shopify’s president, said Google and Shopify were developing new ways for merchants to sell through Google services, such as experiments to allow customers to buy items directly on YouTube and to display what products stores are carrying in Google Maps. Ready walked a fine line when it came to Amazon, which is a big buyer of ads on Google, but he made it clear he believed Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce posed a threat to other merchants. “Nobody wants to live in a world where there is only one place to buy something, and retailers don’t want to be dependent on gatekeepers,” he said in an interview. Google said it had increased the number of sellers appearing in its results by 80% in 2020, with the most significant growth coming from small and midsize businesses. And existing retailers are listing more products. Overstock.com, a seller of discount furniture and home bedding, said it had paid to list products on Google in the past. But now that listings are free, Overstock is adding low-margin products, too. “When all shopping starts and stops at Amazon, that’s bad for the industry,” said Jonathan E. Johnson, Overstock’s chief executive. “It’s nice to have another 800-pound tech gorilla in this space.” What remains unclear is whether increasing the number of merchants and listings on Google will ultimately change online shopping habits. BACtrack, a maker of breathalyzers, has more than doubled its advertising spending on Amazon in the last two years because that is where the customers are, it said, while it has spent 6% less advertising its products on Google. “It seems like more and more people are skipping Google and going straight to Amazon,” said Keith Nothacker, chief executive of BACtrack.

Google aims to be the anti-Amazon of e-commerce. It has a long way to go

He had already been banned from Twitter, but on his podcast he could give full voice to his hateful conspiracy theories.

The podcaster argued that the man in Atlanta who had confessed to killing eight people at massage parlors last week, including six women of Asian descent, was the one who had truly been victimized — the casualty of a supposed Jewish plot.

“Your heart goes out to the guy,” he said.

The remarks, emblematic of a long-standing online network of white supremacists and pro-Nazi groups, weren’t hidden in some dark corner of the internet, but could be found on Google Podcasts, the search giant’s official podcast app that was released for Android in 2018 and expanded to Apple devices last year.

As leading social networks like Facebook and Twitter have taken some steps to limit hate speech, misinformation and incitements to violence in recent months, podcasts — historically fueled by a spirit of good-natured anarchy — stand as one of the last remaining platforms for the de-platformed.

After Twitter last November suspended the account of Steve Bannon, the onetime adviser to former President Donald Trump, for suggesting that several officials be beheaded, he continued to enjoy large audiences with his podcast, available on both Apple and Google’s services.

But even in the world of podcasting, Google Podcasts — whose app has been downloaded more than 19 million times, according to Apptopia — stands alone among major platforms in its tolerance of hate speech and other extremist content. A recent nonexhaustive search turned up more than two dozen podcasts from white supremacists and pro-Nazi groups, offering a buffet of slurs and conspiracy theories. None of the podcasts appeared on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher.

Google Podcasts is also one of the few remaining homes of Alex Jones, the “Infowars” broadcaster, who was banned in 2018 from Apple, Spotify and Stitcher for repeated violations of their policies on hate speech and harassment. Google, citing its own policies, terminated Jones’ YouTube account. Last year, it removed the Infowars app from the Google Play Store for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus.

But Jones’ programs are still available on Google Podcasts.

Told of the white supremacist and pro-Nazi content on its platform and asked about its policy, a Google spokesperson, Charity Mhende, compared Google Podcasts to Google Search. She said that the company did not want to “limit what people are able to find,” and that it only blocks content “in rare circumstances, largely guided by local law.”

That hands-off approach to moderation recalls the original position of social networks like Facebook and Twitter, which have become more vigilant in recent years in their attempts to rein in the spread of harmful content.

Both Facebook and Twitter barred Trump from posting after the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol that left five dead and more than 100 injured.

On Thursday, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, joined the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter in testifying before Congress about the spread of extremism and disinformation. He said in written testimony that Google was committed to “providing trustworthy content and opportunities for free expression across our platforms, while limiting the reach of harmful misinformation,” but did not mention podcasts.

Jessica Fjeld, the assistant director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, said she was surprised that Google had taken such a “hard-line” posture against regulating its platform.

She compared Google Podcasts’ positioning to that of Parler, the largely unregulated social network that was a hotbed for disinformation and extremist groups before the largest tech companies turned away from it.

“Google is perfectly well aware of how to moderate content if it cares to,” said Fjeld. “It seems like they’ve made a decision to embrace an audience that wants more offensive content rather than constrain that content for the sake of safety and respect.”

Google Podcasts, like most other podcast players, including Apple’s, doesn’t host content on its own servers. (Spotify and Audible are prominent exceptions to this rule). Instead, it aggregates RSS feeds — a standardized web format that allows users to receive regularly updated content — that are hosted by third parties.

When Apple bans a podcast, such as Jones’, it removes the RSS feed from its directory. Google Podcasts says it’s unwilling to take that step except in a narrow set of cases.

The services’ content policy compares its function to Google Search’s aggregation of links. Unless a podcast violates the rules that apply to links appearing in Google Search, most of which are based on legal restrictions, it will remain on Google Podcasts. Google does draw distinctions when it comes to which podcasts it will promote, and thus make easier to find. It says it does not recommend content that is “inappropriate, insensitive, or offensive in nature,” and goes on to cite specific areas of concern, including content that is harassing, hateful, deceptive or dangerous.

Though the company likens its podcast platform to search, Google Podcast’s own product description notes significant differences, including the ability to manipulate playback speed, create playlists and download and store content.

But there is at least one connection between Google Podcasts and Google Search. In 2019, Google began integrating podcasts into search results using its own platform, making it possible to play content directly from the results page. All podcasts, including those featuring hate speech, currently benefit from this feature under Google’s policy.

In the early days, content moderation in podcasting was virtually nonexistent. Apple, the industry’s largest and most influential player, which added support for podcasts to iTunes in 2005, at first paid little attention to the nascent ecosystem, opting to serve largely as a delivery vehicle.

The company’s benign neglect was a boon for many creators. Popular comedians (Adam Carolla, Marc Maron) and public radio exiles (Kaitlin Prest, “The Heart”; Nick van der Kolk, “Love + Radio”) took advantage of the medium’s low barrier to entry to find audiences. Many prized freedom of expression, unburdened by the Federal Communications Commission that regulates radio and television broadcasters.

“Everyone who had an idea had a place to explore it,” said Johanna Zorn, a longtime public radio producer and the co-founder of the Third Coast International Audio Festival. “There was suddenly a variety of voices and experiences that would never have existed otherwise.”

But not all of those voices, part of a chorus of more than 1 million podcasts in existence today, were virtuous. And with more popularity — 80 million Americans listened to a podcast at least once a week in 2020, according to Edison Research — came more scrutiny.

Many provocative podcasts, including several hosted by fringe and far-right figures, exist on nearly all the platforms. But the decision to ban Jones signaled a new willingness among leading services to take action against content they consider beyond the pale.

Noah Shanok, the co-founder and former CEO of Stitcher, which was the first podcast platform to ban Jones, said he believes that podcasts provide a unique form of passive, “lean back” entertainment that benefits from curation.

“The more you move in that direction, the more onus there is to police content,” he said.

Experts debate whether dangerous speech poses the same threat on podcasts that it does on social media. Keri Hoffman, CEO of PRX, a nonprofit network that distributes “This American Life” and other popular programs, noted that while social media allows users to send near-real-time messages to potentially billions of users, podcasts, which take more work to discover, have more limited reach.

“If radio was like talking into a great big pipe, podcasts are like talking into a cocktail straw,” she said.

But the insular, self-selecting nature of podcast communities presents its own challenges.

Michael Edison Hayden, a senior investigative reporter with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that podcasts were a “fundamental building block” of the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, helping organizers who had been banned from more mainstream platforms cultivate a national following.

“Podcasts were instrumental in radicalizing and galvanizing that movement,” he said.

For Hoffman, the health of the ecosystem depends on finding some balance between free expression and safety.

“I really believe the openness of podcasting has been key to its success story so far, and will be in the future,” she said. “But there have to be some guardrails.”

He had already been banned from Twitter, but on his podcast he could give full voice to his hateful conspiracy theories. The podcaster argued that the man in Atlanta who had confessed to killing eight people at massage parlors last week, including six women of Asian descent, was the one who had truly been victimized — the casualty of a supposed Jewish plot.

He had already been banned from Twitter, but on his podcast he could give full voice to his hateful conspiracy theories. The podcaster argued that the man in Atlanta who had confessed to killing eight people at massage parlors last week, including six women of Asian descent, was the one who had truly been victimized — the casualty of a supposed Jewish plot. “Your heart goes out to the guy,” he said. The remarks, emblematic of a long-standing online network of white supremacists and pro-Nazi groups, weren’t hidden in some dark corner of the internet, but could be found on Google Podcasts, the search giant’s official podcast app that was released for Android in 2018 and expanded to Apple devices last year. As leading social networks like Facebook and Twitter have taken some steps to limit hate speech, misinformation and incitements to violence in recent months, podcasts — historically fueled by a spirit of good-natured anarchy — stand as one of the last remaining platforms for the de-platformed. After Twitter last November suspended the account of Steve Bannon, the onetime adviser to former President Donald Trump, for suggesting that several officials be beheaded, he continued to enjoy large audiences with his podcast, available on both Apple and Google’s services. But even in the world of podcasting, Google Podcasts — whose app has been downloaded more than 19 million times, according to Apptopia — stands alone among major platforms in its tolerance of hate speech and other extremist content. A recent nonexhaustive search turned up more than two dozen podcasts from white supremacists and pro-Nazi groups, offering a buffet of slurs and conspiracy theories. None of the podcasts appeared on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Google Podcasts is also one of the few remaining homes of Alex Jones, the “Infowars” broadcaster, who was banned in 2018 from Apple, Spotify and Stitcher for repeated violations of their policies on hate speech and harassment. Google, citing its own policies, terminated Jones’ YouTube account. Last year, it removed the Infowars app from the Google Play Store for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. But Jones’ programs are still available on Google Podcasts. Told of the white supremacist and pro-Nazi content on its platform and asked about its policy, a Google spokesperson, Charity Mhende, compared Google Podcasts to Google Search. She said that the company did not want to “limit what people are able to find,” and that it only blocks content “in rare circumstances, largely guided by local law.” That hands-off approach to moderation recalls the original position of social networks like Facebook and Twitter, which have become more vigilant in recent years in their attempts to rein in the spread of harmful content. Both Facebook and Twitter barred Trump from posting after the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol that left five dead and more than 100 injured. On Thursday, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, joined the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter in testifying before Congress about the spread of extremism and disinformation. He said in written testimony that Google was committed to “providing trustworthy content and opportunities for free expression across our platforms, while limiting the reach of harmful misinformation,” but did not mention podcasts. Jessica Fjeld, the assistant director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, said she was surprised that Google had taken such a “hard-line” posture against regulating its platform. She compared Google Podcasts’ positioning to that of Parler, the largely unregulated social network that was a hotbed for disinformation and extremist groups before the largest tech companies turned away from it. “Google is perfectly well aware of how to moderate content if it cares to,” said Fjeld. “It seems like they’ve made a decision to embrace an audience that wants more offensive content rather than constrain that content for the sake of safety and respect.” Google Podcasts, like most other podcast players, including Apple’s, doesn’t host content on its own servers. (Spotify and Audible are prominent exceptions to this rule). Instead, it aggregates RSS feeds — a standardized web format that allows users to receive regularly updated content — that are hosted by third parties. When Apple bans a podcast, such as Jones’, it removes the RSS feed from its directory. Google Podcasts says it’s unwilling to take that step except in a narrow set of cases. The services’ content policy compares its function to Google Search’s aggregation of links. Unless a podcast violates the rules that apply to links appearing in Google Search, most of which are based on legal restrictions, it will remain on Google Podcasts. Google does draw distinctions when it comes to which podcasts it will promote, and thus make easier to find. It says it does not recommend content that is “inappropriate, insensitive, or offensive in nature,” and goes on to cite specific areas of concern, including content that is harassing, hateful, deceptive or dangerous. Though the company likens its podcast platform to search, Google Podcast’s own product description notes significant differences, including the ability to manipulate playback speed, create playlists and download and store content. But there is at least one connection between Google Podcasts and Google Search. In 2019, Google began integrating podcasts into search results using its own platform, making it possible to play content directly from the results page. All podcasts, including those featuring hate speech, currently benefit from this feature under Google’s policy. In the early days, content moderation in podcasting was virtually nonexistent. Apple, the industry’s largest and most influential player, which added support for podcasts to iTunes in 2005, at first paid little attention to the nascent ecosystem, opting to serve largely as a delivery vehicle. The company’s benign neglect was a boon for many creators. Popular comedians (Adam Carolla, Marc Maron) and public radio exiles (Kaitlin Prest, “The Heart”; Nick van der Kolk, “Love + Radio”) took advantage of the medium’s low barrier to entry to find audiences. Many prized freedom of expression, unburdened by the Federal Communications Commission that regulates radio and television broadcasters. “Everyone who had an idea had a place to explore it,” said Johanna Zorn, a longtime public radio producer and the co-founder of the Third Coast International Audio Festival. “There was suddenly a variety of voices and experiences that would never have existed otherwise.” But not all of those voices, part of a chorus of more than 1 million podcasts in existence today, were virtuous. And with more popularity — 80 million Americans listened to a podcast at least once a week in 2020, according to Edison Research — came more scrutiny. Many provocative podcasts, including several hosted by fringe and far-right figures, exist on nearly all the platforms. But the decision to ban Jones signaled a new willingness among leading services to take action against content they consider beyond the pale. Noah Shanok, the co-founder and former CEO of Stitcher, which was the first podcast platform to ban Jones, said he believes that podcasts provide a unique form of passive, “lean back” entertainment that benefits from curation. “The more you move in that direction, the more onus there is to police content,” he said. Experts debate whether dangerous speech poses the same threat on podcasts that it does on social media. Keri Hoffman, CEO of PRX, a nonprofit network that distributes “This American Life” and other popular programs, noted that while social media allows users to send near-real-time messages to potentially billions of users, podcasts, which take more work to discover, have more limited reach. “If radio was like talking into a great big pipe, podcasts are like talking into a cocktail straw,” she said. But the insular, self-selecting nature of podcast communities presents its own challenges. Michael Edison Hayden, a senior investigative reporter with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that podcasts were a “fundamental building block” of the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, helping organizers who had been banned from more mainstream platforms cultivate a national following. “Podcasts were instrumental in radicalizing and galvanizing that movement,” he said. For Hoffman, the health of the ecosystem depends on finding some balance between free expression and safety. “I really believe the openness of podcasting has been key to its success story so far, and will be in the future,” she said. “But there have to be some guardrails.”

On Google podcasts, a buffet of hate

Lawmakers grilled the leaders of Facebook, Google and Twitter on Thursday about the connection between online disinformation and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, causing Twitter’s CEO to publicly admit for the first time that his product had played a role in the events that left five people dead.

When a Democratic lawmaker asked the executives to answer with a “yes” or a “no” whether the platforms bore some responsibility for the misinformation that had contributed to the riot, Jack Dorsey of Twitter said “yes.” Neither Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook nor Sundar Pichai of Google would answer the question directly.

The roughly five-hour hearing before a House committee marked the first time lawmakers directly questioned the CEOs regarding social media’s role in the January riot. The tech bosses were also peppered with questions about how their companies helped spread falsehoods around COVID-19 vaccines, enable racism and hurt children’s mental health.

It was also the first time the executives had testified since President Joe Biden’s inauguration. Tough questioning from lawmakers signaled that scrutiny of Silicon Valley’s business practices would not let up, and could even intensify, with Democrats in the White House and leading both chambers of Congress.

The CEOs have become Capitol Hill regulars in recent years. Zuckerberg has testified seven times since 2018. Dorsey has appeared five times and Pichai has testified four times since then. But these hearings, regarding disinformation, antitrust and data privacy, have not led to regulations. Though there is bipartisan animus toward the companies, there is still little agreement on how specifically to hold the internet giants to account. Dozens of privacy, speech and antitrust bills have gone nowhere in the past few years.

“It will be very challenging to translate these concerns into legislation,” said Alexandra Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a tech think tank.

At the heart of the hearing were questions about whether the companies had a financial incentive to keep users engaged — and clicking on ads — by feeding them divisive, extreme and hateful content. Lawmakers from both parties said Congress should reconsider a law that shields the platforms from lawsuits over content posted by their users.

“You’re not passive bystanders,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “You’re making money.”

Lawmakers, who compared the business practices of social media companies to tobacco and alcohol companies, grew frustrated at times with what they said was the executives’ evasiveness.

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., asked the tech CEOs to answer yes or no: Did their platforms contribute to the spread of misinformation before the riot?

Zuckerberg and Pichai dodged the question. Dorsey was more direct.

“Yes,” he said. “But you also have to take into consideration the broader ecosystem. It’s not just about the technology platforms we use.”

Doyle pressed the other executives.

“How is it possible for you not to at least admit that Facebook played a leading role in facilitating the recruitment, planning and execution of the attack on the Capitol?” he asked Zuckerberg.

“I think that the responsibility here lies with the people who took the actions to break the law and do the insurrection,” Zuckerberg said. He added that people who spread the misinformation bore responsibility as well.

“But your platforms supercharged that,” Doyle said.

Later, while still participating in the videoconference hearing, Dorsey tweeted a single question mark with a poll that had two options: “Yes” or “No.” When asked about his tweet by a lawmaker, he said “yes” was winning.

The January riot at the Capitol has made the issue of disinformation deeply personal for lawmakers. The riot was fueled by false claims from President Donald Trump and others that the election had been stolen, which were rampant on social media.

Some of the participants had connections to QAnon and other online conspiracy theories. And prosecutors have said that groups involved in the riot, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, coordinated some of their actions on social media.

Lawmakers also criticized the platforms for the way they have enabled the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic and the vaccines for COVID-19. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who represents part of Silicon Valley, told Dorsey that Twitter should “eliminate all COVID misinformation — and not label or reduce its spread, but remove it.”

Republicans criticized the companies for the amplification of toxic content that particularly harmed children. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said social media was her “greatest fear” as a parent. “I’ve monitored where your algorithms lead them. It’s frightening. I know I’m not alone,” Rodgers said.

The Republican members also focused on decisions by the social media platforms to ban Trump and his associates after the Jan. 6 riots. The bans hardened views by conservatives that the companies are left-leaning and are inclined to squelch conservative voices.

“We’re all aware of Big Tech’s ever-increasing censorship of conservative voices and their commitment to serve the radical progressive agenda,” said Rep. Bob Latta of Ohio, the ranking Republican on the panel’s technology subcommittee.

The company leaders defended their businesses, saying they had invested heavily in hiring content moderators and in technology like artificial intelligence, used to identify and fight disinformation.

Zuckerberg argued against the notion that his company had a financial incentive to juice its users’ attention by driving them toward more extreme content. He said Facebook didn’t design “algorithms in order to just kind of try to tweak and optimize and get people to spend every last minute on our service.”

He added later in the hearing that elections disinformation was spread in messaging apps, where amplification and algorithms don’t aid in spread of false content. He also blamed television and other traditional media for spreading election lies.

The companies showed fissures in their view on regulations. Facebook has vocally supported internet regulations in a major advertising blitz on television and in newspapers. In the hearing, Zuckerberg suggested specific regulatory reforms to a key legal shield, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that has helped Facebook and other Silicon Valley internet giants thrive.

The legal shield protects companies that host and moderate third-party content, and says companies like Google and Twitter are simply intermediaries of their user-generated content. Democrats have argued that with that protection, companies aren’t motivated to remove disinformation. Republicans accuse the companies of using the shield to moderate too much and to take down content that doesn’t represent their political viewpoints.

“I believe that Section 230 would benefit from thoughtful changes to make it work better for people,” Zuckerberg said in the statement.

He proposed that liability protection for companies be conditional on their ability to fight the spread of certain types of unlawful content. He said platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it. Reforms, he said, should be different for smaller social networks, which wouldn’t have the same resources like Facebook to meet new requirements.

Pichai and Dorsey said they supported requirements of transparency in content moderation but fell short of agreeing with Zuckerberg’s other ideas. Dorsey said that it would be very difficult to distinguish a large platform from a smaller one.

Lawmakers did not appear to be won over.

“There’s a lot of smugness among you,” said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio. “There’s this air of untouchable-ness in your responses to many of the tough questions that you’re being asked.” 
&nbsp;

Lawmakers grilled the leaders of Facebook, Google and Twitter on Thursday about the connection between online disinformation and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, causing Twitter’s CEO to publicly admit for the first time that his product had played a role in the events that left five people dead.

Lawmakers grilled the leaders of Facebook, Google and Twitter on Thursday about the connection between online disinformation and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, causing Twitter’s CEO to publicly admit for the first time that his product had played a role in the events that left five people dead. When a Democratic lawmaker asked the executives to answer with a “yes” or a “no” whether the platforms bore some responsibility for the misinformation that had contributed to the riot, Jack Dorsey of Twitter said “yes.” Neither Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook nor Sundar Pichai of Google would answer the question directly. The roughly five-hour hearing before a House committee marked the first time lawmakers directly questioned the CEOs regarding social media’s role in the January riot. The tech bosses were also peppered with questions about how their companies helped spread falsehoods around COVID-19 vaccines, enable racism and hurt children’s mental health. It was also the first time the executives had testified since President Joe Biden’s inauguration. Tough questioning from lawmakers signaled that scrutiny of Silicon Valley’s business practices would not let up, and could even intensify, with Democrats in the White House and leading both chambers of Congress. The CEOs have become Capitol Hill regulars in recent years. Zuckerberg has testified seven times since 2018. Dorsey has appeared five times and Pichai has testified four times since then. But these hearings, regarding disinformation, antitrust and data privacy, have not led to regulations. Though there is bipartisan animus toward the companies, there is still little agreement on how specifically to hold the internet giants to account. Dozens of privacy, speech and antitrust bills have gone nowhere in the past few years. “It will be very challenging to translate these concerns into legislation,” said Alexandra Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a tech think tank. At the heart of the hearing were questions about whether the companies had a financial incentive to keep users engaged — and clicking on ads — by feeding them divisive, extreme and hateful content. Lawmakers from both parties said Congress should reconsider a law that shields the platforms from lawsuits over content posted by their users. “You’re not passive bystanders,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “You’re making money.” Lawmakers, who compared the business practices of social media companies to tobacco and alcohol companies, grew frustrated at times with what they said was the executives’ evasiveness. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., asked the tech CEOs to answer yes or no: Did their platforms contribute to the spread of misinformation before the riot? Zuckerberg and Pichai dodged the question. Dorsey was more direct. “Yes,” he said. “But you also have to take into consideration the broader ecosystem. It’s not just about the technology platforms we use.” Doyle pressed the other executives. “How is it possible for you not to at least admit that Facebook played a leading role in facilitating the recruitment, planning and execution of the attack on the Capitol?” he asked Zuckerberg. “I think that the responsibility here lies with the people who took the actions to break the law and do the insurrection,” Zuckerberg said. He added that people who spread the misinformation bore responsibility as well. “But your platforms supercharged that,” Doyle said. Later, while still participating in the videoconference hearing, Dorsey tweeted a single question mark with a poll that had two options: “Yes” or “No.” When asked about his tweet by a lawmaker, he said “yes” was winning. The January riot at the Capitol has made the issue of disinformation deeply personal for lawmakers. The riot was fueled by false claims from President Donald Trump and others that the election had been stolen, which were rampant on social media. Some of the participants had connections to QAnon and other online conspiracy theories. And prosecutors have said that groups involved in the riot, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, coordinated some of their actions on social media. Lawmakers also criticized the platforms for the way they have enabled the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic and the vaccines for COVID-19. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who represents part of Silicon Valley, told Dorsey that Twitter should “eliminate all COVID misinformation — and not label or reduce its spread, but remove it.” Republicans criticized the companies for the amplification of toxic content that particularly harmed children. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said social media was her “greatest fear” as a parent. “I’ve monitored where your algorithms lead them. It’s frightening. I know I’m not alone,” Rodgers said. The Republican members also focused on decisions by the social media platforms to ban Trump and his associates after the Jan. 6 riots. The bans hardened views by conservatives that the companies are left-leaning and are inclined to squelch conservative voices. “We’re all aware of Big Tech’s ever-increasing censorship of conservative voices and their commitment to serve the radical progressive agenda,” said Rep. Bob Latta of Ohio, the ranking Republican on the panel’s technology subcommittee. The company leaders defended their businesses, saying they had invested heavily in hiring content moderators and in technology like artificial intelligence, used to identify and fight disinformation. Zuckerberg argued against the notion that his company had a financial incentive to juice its users’ attention by driving them toward more extreme content. He said Facebook didn’t design “algorithms in order to just kind of try to tweak and optimize and get people to spend every last minute on our service.” He added later in the hearing that elections disinformation was spread in messaging apps, where amplification and algorithms don’t aid in spread of false content. He also blamed television and other traditional media for spreading election lies. The companies showed fissures in their view on regulations. Facebook has vocally supported internet regulations in a major advertising blitz on television and in newspapers. In the hearing, Zuckerberg suggested specific regulatory reforms to a key legal shield, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that has helped Facebook and other Silicon Valley internet giants thrive. The legal shield protects companies that host and moderate third-party content, and says companies like Google and Twitter are simply intermediaries of their user-generated content. Democrats have argued that with that protection, companies aren’t motivated to remove disinformation. Republicans accuse the companies of using the shield to moderate too much and to take down content that doesn’t represent their political viewpoints. “I believe that Section 230 would benefit from thoughtful changes to make it work better for people,” Zuckerberg said in the statement. He proposed that liability protection for companies be conditional on their ability to fight the spread of certain types of unlawful content. He said platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it. Reforms, he said, should be different for smaller social networks, which wouldn’t have the same resources like Facebook to meet new requirements. Pichai and Dorsey said they supported requirements of transparency in content moderation but fell short of agreeing with Zuckerberg’s other ideas. Dorsey said that it would be very difficult to distinguish a large platform from a smaller one. Lawmakers did not appear to be won over. “There’s a lot of smugness among you,” said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio. “There’s this air of untouchable-ness in your responses to many of the tough questions that you’re being asked.”

US lawmakers grill tech CEOs on Capitol riot, getting few direct answers

Four more states have joined a lawsuit filed by Texas and others against Alphabet Inc's Google that accuses it of breaking antitrust laws to boost its already dominant advertising business.

The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the law in how it dominates the steps in the process of placing ads online. It alleges Google quietly teams with its closest online advertising competitor, Facebook, and that it uses the excuse of protecting users' privacy to act unfairly. Publishers complain that one result has been lower revenues.

Joining the lawsuit filed in December are Alaska, Florida, Montana, Nevada and Puerto Rico, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. This brings the number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit to 15 states and territories.

The lawsuit was one of three filed last year by the federal government or states against the tech giant.

Google is fighting the allegations, and a hearing scheduled for Thursday is expected to include discussion of the company's petition for a Texas federal court to move the case to California.

"Our coalition looks forward to holding Google accountable for its illegal conduct and reforming Google’s practices in the future," Paxton said in a statement. "We are confident Google will be forced to pay for its misconduct through significant financial penalties."

The amended complaint states that Facebook and Google "work together to identify users using Apple products," without elaborating. Apple Inc in recent years on its Safari browser and iPhones has increased ways to block what it views as privacy-intrusive user tracking by ad tech companies, some of which have tried to devise circumvention measures.

The revised complaint also adds that beginning in 2015, Google could view messages from Facebook's WhatsApp service that users backed up to Google's Drive cloud storage system. Google knew users were uninformed about its access, but "did nothing to correct this misunderstanding," the lawsuit states.

Google Drive gained almost 250 million new users by June 2016 because of the WhatsApp partnership, according to the lawsuit.

Four more states have joined a lawsuit filed by Texas and others against Alphabet Inc's Google that accuses it of breaking antitrust laws to boost its already dominant advertising business.

Four more states have joined a lawsuit filed by Texas and others against Alphabet Inc's Google that accuses it of breaking antitrust laws to boost its already dominant advertising business. The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the law in how it dominates the steps in the process of placing ads online. It alleges Google quietly teams with its closest online advertising competitor, Facebook, and that it uses the excuse of protecting users' privacy to act unfairly. Publishers complain that one result has been lower revenues. Joining the lawsuit filed in December are Alaska, Florida, Montana, Nevada and Puerto Rico, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. This brings the number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit to 15 states and territories. The lawsuit was one of three filed last year by the federal government or states against the tech giant. Google is fighting the allegations, and a hearing scheduled for Thursday is expected to include discussion of the company's petition for a Texas federal court to move the case to California. "Our coalition looks forward to holding Google accountable for its illegal conduct and reforming Google’s practices in the future," Paxton said in a statement. "We are confident Google will be forced to pay for its misconduct through significant financial penalties." The amended complaint states that Facebook and Google "work together to identify users using Apple products," without elaborating. Apple Inc in recent years on its Safari browser and iPhones has increased ways to block what it views as privacy-intrusive user tracking by ad tech companies, some of which have tried to devise circumvention measures. The revised complaint also adds that beginning in 2015, Google could view messages from Facebook's WhatsApp service that users backed up to Google's Drive cloud storage system. Google knew users were uninformed about its access, but "did nothing to correct this misunderstanding," the lawsuit states. Google Drive gained almost 250 million new users by June 2016 because of the WhatsApp partnership, according to the lawsuit.

Four more US states join Texas-led antitrust lawsuit against Google

Google has accused&nbsp;Microsoft of "distraction" for siding with governments seeking to force tech platforms to pay media organizations for news content.

Google and Facebook have resisted mandatory payments, while Microsoft has taken a more collaborative stance.

In a blog post on Friday, Google argued that Microsoft was trying to divert attention from a potentially devastating attack on Exchange emails servers by hackers taking advantage of software vulnerabilities.

The comments came amid a heated battle of words over efforts in Australia and elsewhere to require digital services to negotiate payments for news content.

Microsoft president Brad Smith, in a letter to a congressional subcommittee hearing, blamed Google's business model for "devouring" ad revenue on which news groups rely.

Google senior vice president of global affairs Kent Walker fired back in the blog post, saying, "[Microsoft is] now making self-serving claims and are even willing to break the way the open web works in an effort to undercut a rival."&nbsp;

Walker added, "This important debate should be about the substance of the issue, and not derailed by naked corporate opportunism."

In his letter, Smith lauded the role news organisations play in defending democracy and contended that the "internet gutted the already ailing local news business by devouring advertising revenue and luring away paid subscribers."

Microsoft has lobbied for other countries to follow Australia's lead in calling for news outlets to be paid for stories published online, a move opposed by Facebook and Google.

Backers of Google and Facebook have claimed that mandatory payments for news links would fundamentally change the way the internet works and ultimately be detrimental to free online services.

Google has accused Microsoft of "distraction" for siding with governments seeking to force tech platforms to pay media organizations for news content. Google and Facebook have resisted mandatory payments, while Microsoft has taken a more collaborative stance.

Google has accused Microsoft of "distraction" for siding with governments seeking to force tech platforms to pay media organizations for news content. Google and Facebook have resisted mandatory payments, while Microsoft has taken a more collaborative stance. In a blog post on Friday, Google argued that Microsoft was trying to divert attention from a potentially devastating attack on Exchange emails servers by hackers taking advantage of software vulnerabilities. The comments came amid a heated battle of words over efforts in Australia and elsewhere to require digital services to negotiate payments for news content. Microsoft president Brad Smith, in a letter to a congressional subcommittee hearing, blamed Google's business model for "devouring" ad revenue on which news groups rely. Google senior vice president of global affairs Kent Walker fired back in the blog post, saying, "[Microsoft is] now making self-serving claims and are even willing to break the way the open web works in an effort to undercut a rival." Walker added, "This important debate should be about the substance of the issue, and not derailed by naked corporate opportunism." In his letter, Smith lauded the role news organisations play in defending democracy and contended that the "internet gutted the already ailing local news business by devouring advertising revenue and luring away paid subscribers." Microsoft has lobbied for other countries to follow Australia's lead in calling for news outlets to be paid for stories published online, a move opposed by Facebook and Google. Backers of Google and Facebook have claimed that mandatory payments for news links would fundamentally change the way the internet works and ultimately be detrimental to free online services.

Google slams Microsoft over stance in media payments

A UK watchdog -- that goes by the name of Which? -- has exposed a web of paid-for reviewers providing fake reviews to dozens of British businesses listings on Google.

The consumer group set up a fake company and bought bogus five-star reviews as part of an investigation. Which? was then able to tie its sham "customers" to dozens of other highly-rated British firms, including a dentist and a stockbroker.

Google, on its part, says it has "significantly" invested in tech to tackle the issue.

Which? conducted its research by essentially setting up a "sting" operation to catch unscrupulous operators in the act. It created a fake business listing which it called "five-star reviews", and searched online for companies advertising paid-for Google reviews. It then spent $150 (£108) on their services.

The Google accounts, which were used to plant the fake reviews, had reviewed similar businesses all around the country. It also said that some fake reviews could have serious real-world consequences.&nbsp;

When it presented Google with the findings, the fake sting company was immediately deleted, Which? said.

Google said that its policies ban fake reviews, and that it monitors the system for fraud around the clock, "using a combination of people and technology".

The UK watchdog, in its report, has called on the competition and markets authority (CMA) to take strong action against sites that host reviews if they find that they are failing to prevent fake reviews from flooding their platforms.

(with inputs)

A UK watchdog -- that goes by the name of Which? -- has exposed a web of paid-for reviewers providing fake reviews to dozens of British businesses listings on Google.

A UK watchdog -- that goes by the name of Which? -- has exposed a web of paid-for reviewers providing fake reviews to dozens of British businesses listings on Google. The consumer group set up a fake company and bought bogus five-star reviews as part of an investigation. Which? was then able to tie its sham "customers" to dozens of other highly-rated British firms, including a dentist and a stockbroker. Google, on its part, says it has "significantly" invested in tech to tackle the issue. Which? conducted its research by essentially setting up a "sting" operation to catch unscrupulous operators in the act. It created a fake business listing which it called "five-star reviews", and searched online for companies advertising paid-for Google reviews. It then spent $150 (£108) on their services. The Google accounts, which were used to plant the fake reviews, had reviewed similar businesses all around the country. It also said that some fake reviews could have serious real-world consequences. When it presented Google with the findings, the fake sting company was immediately deleted, Which? said. Google said that its policies ban fake reviews, and that it monitors the system for fraud around the clock, "using a combination of people and technology". The UK watchdog, in its report, has called on the competition and markets authority (CMA) to take strong action against sites that host reviews if they find that they are failing to prevent fake reviews from flooding their platforms. (with inputs)

UK businesses caught buying fake five-star Google reviews from firms found in search results

Google and Viber on Wednesday said that they were reviewing recent advertisements carried by a Myanmar military-backed telecommunications firm post the February 1 coup.

This comes as Justice for Myanmar, an advocacy group alleged on Wednesday that Google and Viber were running new ads for Mytel, a telecoms company partially owned by the Myanmar army, following a ban by Facebook.

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/myanmar-protests-over-60-protesters-have-been-killed-1900-arrested-369416/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

About 2,000 people have been arrested and more than 60 people have died so far, reports news agency AFP as security personnel has intensified crackdown against the pro-democracy protesters.&nbsp;

Google said it was reviewing the ads and had separately disabled some accounts linked to the military including ones on Gmail, Blogger, and the Google Play store.

"We have taken action against accounts on our platforms... including disabling accounts on Google services and taking down a number of YouTube channels and videos related to the Myanmar military," a Google spokeswoman said.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/shoot-till-they-are-dead-some-myanmar-police-say-fled-to-india-after-refusing-orders-369360">‘Shoot till they are dead’: Some Myanmar police say fled to India after refusing orders</a>

Earlier, messaging platform Viber announced on Wednesday that it is stopping all advertisements in Myanmar temporarily.&nbsp;

"We are looking into the current situation to ensure all ads comply with guidelines," the company responded to a tweet of news agency Reuters.&nbsp;

"Viber continues to focus on the most important task - ensuring people in Myanmar continue to communicate freely and securely under the circumstances." 
&nbsp;

Google and Viber on Wednesday said that they were reviewing recent advertisements carried by a Myanmar military-backed telecommunications firm post the February 1 coup.

Google and Viber on Wednesday said that they were reviewing recent advertisements carried by a Myanmar military-backed telecommunications firm post the February 1 coup. This comes as Justice for Myanmar, an advocacy group alleged on Wednesday that Google and Viber were running new ads for Mytel, a telecoms company partially owned by the Myanmar army, following a ban by Facebook. Watch | About 2,000 people have been arrested and more than 60 people have died so far, reports news agency AFP as security personnel has intensified crackdown against the pro-democracy protesters. Google said it was reviewing the ads and had separately disabled some accounts linked to the military including ones on Gmail, Blogger, and the Google Play store. "We have taken action against accounts on our platforms... including disabling accounts on Google services and taking down a number of YouTube channels and videos related to the Myanmar military," a Google spokeswoman said. Also read | ‘Shoot till they are dead’: Some Myanmar police say fled to India after refusing orders Earlier, messaging platform Viber announced on Wednesday that it is stopping all advertisements in Myanmar temporarily. "We are looking into the current situation to ensure all ads comply with guidelines," the company responded to a tweet of news agency Reuters. "Viber continues to focus on the most important task - ensuring people in Myanmar continue to communicate freely and securely under the circumstances."

Google, Viber review ads posted by military-backed firm

Alphabet Inc's&nbsp;Google has unveiled a&nbsp;$25 million global grant to non-profits and social enterprises globally, including in India, that are working on empowering girls and women.

The company, which has committed support of one million rural women entrepreneurs in India, also stated that its Internet Saathi digital literacy training programme has benefitted over 30 million women across the country.

Google's&nbsp;new Impact Challenge, a philanthropic initiative was unveiled on International Women`s Day by the company's CEO&nbsp;Sundar Pichai.

Google.org, the philanthropic arm of the technology giant, is aimed at addressing systemic barriers and inequities so that women have access to economic equality, the opportunity to build financial independence, and pursue entrepreneurism, said Google chief executive Sundar Pichai at a virtual event.

"We are announcing a new commitment to allow 1 million women in the rural villages to become entrepreneurs, through business tutorials, tools, and mentorship," he added.

"In India, in the past few years, we have invested more than USD 40 million alongside the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the non-profits who are doing amazing work. We announced another million-dollar initiative building on that work, in particular, to help to acquire&nbsp;digital skills to those who are most vulnerable, including women," Jacquelline Fuller, Vice President at Google and President of Google.Org, said in a virtual briefing.

She added that one of the first initiatives under that effort is led by the NASSCOM Foundation, wherein the organisation is getting a $500,000 grant from Google.Org to support one lakh women agricultural workers.

"Whatever these teams need, we are going to be alongside them and help carry out their vision," said Jacquelline Fuller, President of Google.org, at the event.

The company said it will accept applications from teams worldwide until April 9.

Fuller also announced that Google.org is going to invest an additional $1 million to help underserved women in India. Even as India is the world`s second-largest internet market, women make up a small percentage of online users in the country.

Five years ago, Google launched a program called `Internet Saathi` to bring internet literacy to women in rural parts of India. The company said the program, for which it collaborated with Indian conglomerate Tata, significantly helped improve women`s participation on the Indian internet.

Four of 10 internet users in rural India are now women, said Google, up from one in 10 in 2015. The company, citing its own research, said the Internet Saathi program benefited more than 30 million women in India and that it`s now concluding the program to focus on other efforts to continue this mission.

Sapna Chadha, Senior Country Marketing Director at Google India and Southeast Asia, said based on learnings from the Internet Saathi program, the company has launched the Women Will web platform that will be complemented by community support, mentorship and accelerator programmes for rural women entrepreneurs.

Alphabet Inc's Google has unveiled a $25 million global grant to non-profits and social enterprises globally, including in India, that are working on empowering girls and women.

Alphabet Inc's Google has unveiled a $25 million global grant to non-profits and social enterprises globally, including in India, that are working on empowering girls and women. The company, which has committed support of one million rural women entrepreneurs in India, also stated that its Internet Saathi digital literacy training programme has benefitted over 30 million women across the country. Google's new Impact Challenge, a philanthropic initiative was unveiled on International Women`s Day by the company's CEO Sundar Pichai. Google.org, the philanthropic arm of the technology giant, is aimed at addressing systemic barriers and inequities so that women have access to economic equality, the opportunity to build financial independence, and pursue entrepreneurism, said Google chief executive Sundar Pichai at a virtual event. "We are announcing a new commitment to allow 1 million women in the rural villages to become entrepreneurs, through business tutorials, tools, and mentorship," he added. "In India, in the past few years, we have invested more than USD 40 million alongside the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the non-profits who are doing amazing work. We announced another million-dollar initiative building on that work, in particular, to help to acquire digital skills to those who are most vulnerable, including women," Jacquelline Fuller, Vice President at Google and President of Google.Org, said in a virtual briefing. She added that one of the first initiatives under that effort is led by the NASSCOM Foundation, wherein the organisation is getting a $500,000 grant from Google.Org to support one lakh women agricultural workers. "Whatever these teams need, we are going to be alongside them and help carry out their vision," said Jacquelline Fuller, President of Google.org, at the event. The company said it will accept applications from teams worldwide until April 9. Fuller also announced that Google.org is going to invest an additional $1 million to help underserved women in India. Even as India is the world`s second-largest internet market, women make up a small percentage of online users in the country. Five years ago, Google launched a program called `Internet Saathi` to bring internet literacy to women in rural parts of India. The company said the program, for which it collaborated with Indian conglomerate Tata, significantly helped improve women`s participation on the Indian internet. Four of 10 internet users in rural India are now women, said Google, up from one in 10 in 2015. The company, citing its own research, said the Internet Saathi program benefited more than 30 million women in India and that it`s now concluding the program to focus on other efforts to continue this mission. Sapna Chadha, Senior Country Marketing Director at Google India and Southeast Asia, said based on learnings from the Internet Saathi program, the company has launched the Women Will web platform that will be complemented by community support, mentorship and accelerator programmes for rural women entrepreneurs.

Google to provide $25 million to social enterprises working on women empowerment

Google will not build or use alternate tools to track web browsing traffic once it begins phasing out existing technology from its Chrome browser next year, it has clarified in a blog post.

Google first announced it would get rid of third-party cookies, which for decades has enabled online ads, early last year to meet growing data privacy standards in Europe and the United States.

Privacy activists for years have criticised tech companies including Google for using cookies to gather web browsing records across websites they don't own, enabling them to develop profiles on users' interests to serve personalised ads.

Google is now pledging it will not use other technology to replace the cookie or build features inside Chrome to allow itself access to that data, though it continues to test ways for businesses to target ads to large groups of anonymous users with common interests.

"Keeping the internet open and accessible for everyone requires all of us to do more to protect privacy -- and that means an end to not only third-party cookies, but also any technology used for tracking individual people as they browse the web," Google said in the blog post.

(with inputs)

Google will not build or use alternate tools to track web browsing traffic once it begins phasing out existing technology from its Chrome browser next year, it has clarified in a blog post.

Google will not build or use alternate tools to track web browsing traffic once it begins phasing out existing technology from its Chrome browser next year, it has clarified in a blog post. Google first announced it would get rid of third-party cookies, which for decades has enabled online ads, early last year to meet growing data privacy standards in Europe and the United States. Privacy activists for years have criticised tech companies including Google for using cookies to gather web browsing records across websites they don't own, enabling them to develop profiles on users' interests to serve personalised ads. Google is now pledging it will not use other technology to replace the cookie or build features inside Chrome to allow itself access to that data, though it continues to test ways for businesses to target ads to large groups of anonymous users with common interests. "Keeping the internet open and accessible for everyone requires all of us to do more to protect privacy -- and that means an end to not only third-party cookies, but also any technology used for tracking individual people as they browse the web," Google said in the blog post. (with inputs)

Google to not use other web tracking tools after phasing out cookies

After Australia, New Zealand is now eyeing a similar deal with tech giants Facebook and Google. The new law will require Google, Facebook to pay for news publishers.

New Zealand mulls introducing media law similar to Australia

Alphabet Inc`s Google will change procedures before July for reviewing its scientists` work, according to a town hall recording heard by Reuters, part of an effort to quell internal tumult over the integrity of its artificial intelligence (AI) research.

In remarks at a staff meeting last Friday, Google Research executives said they were working to regain trust after the company ousted two prominent women and rejected their work, according to an hour-long recording, the content of which was confirmed by two sources.

Teams are already trialing a questionnaire that will assess projects for risk and help scientists navigate reviews, research unit Chief Operating Officer Maggie Johnson said in the meeting. This initial change will roll out by the end of the second quarter, and the majority of papers will not require extra vetting, she said.

Reuters reported in December that Google had introduced a "sensitive topics" review for studies involving dozens of issues, such as China or bias in its services. Internal reviewers had demanded that at least three papers on AI be modified to refrain from casting Google technology in a negative light, Reuters reported.

Jeff Dean, Google`s senior vice president overseeing the division, said Friday that the "sensitive topics" review "is and was confusing" and that he had tasked a senior research director, Zoubin Ghahramani, with clarifying the rules, according to the recording.

Ghahramani, a University of Cambridge professor who joined Google in September from Uber Technologies Inc, said during the town hall, "We need to be comfortable with that discomfort" of self-critical research. 
Google declined to comment on the Friday meeting.

An internal email, seen by Reuters, offered fresh detail on Google researchers` concerns, showing exactly how Google`s legal department had modified one of the three AI papers, called "Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models."

The email, dated Feb. 8, from a co-author of the paper, Nicholas Carlini, went to hundreds of colleagues, seeking to draw their attention to what he called "deeply insidious" edits by company lawyers.

"Let`s be clear here," the roughly 1,200-word email said. "When we as academics write that we have a `concern` or find something `worrying` and a Google lawyer requires that we change it to sound nicer, this is very much Big Brother stepping in."

Required edits, according to his email, included "negative-to-neutral" swaps such as changing the word "concerns" to "considerations," and "dangers" to "risks." Lawyers also required deleting references to Google technology; the authors` finding that AI leaked copyrighted content; and the words "breach" and "sensitive," the email said.

Carlini did not respond to requests for comment. Google in answer to questions about the email disputed its contention that lawyers were trying to control the paper`s tone. The company said it had no issues with the topics investigated by the paper, but it found some legal terms used inaccurately and conducted a thorough edit as a result.

RACIAL EQUITY AUDIT

Google last week also named Marian Croak, a pioneer in internet audio technology and one of Google`s few Black vice presidents, to consolidate and manage 10 teams studying issues such as racial bias in algorithms and technology for disabled individuals.

Croak said at Friday`s meeting that it would take time to address concerns among AI ethics researchers and mitigate damage to Google`s brand.

"Please hold me fully responsible for trying to turn around that situation," she said on the recording.

Johnson added that the AI organization is bringing in a consulting firm for a wide-ranging racial equity impact assessment. The first-of-its-kind audit for the department would lead to recommendations "that are going to be pretty hard," she said.

Tensions in Dean`s division had deepened in December after Google let go of Timnit Gebru, co-lead of its ethical AI research team, following her refusal to retract a paper on language-generating AI. Gebru, who is Black, accused the company at the time of reviewing her work differently because of her identity and of marginalizing employees from underrepresented backgrounds. Nearly 2,700 employees signed an open letter in support of Gebru.&nbsp;

During the town hall, Dean elaborated on what scholarship the company would support.

"We want responsible AI and ethical AI investigations," Dean said, giving the example of studying technology`s environmental costs. But it is problematic to cite data "off by close to a factor of a hundred" while ignoring more accurate statistics as well as Google`s efforts to reduce emissions, he said. Dean previously has criticized Gebru`s paper for not including important findings on environmental impact.

Gebru defended her paper`s citation. "It`s a really bad look for Google to come out this defensively against a paper that was cited by so many of their peer institutions," she told Reuters.

Employees continued to post about their frustrations over the last month on Twitter as Google investigated and then fired ethical AI co-lead Margaret Mitchell for moving electronic files outside the company. Mitchell said on Twitter that she acted "to raise concerns about race &amp; gender inequity, and speak up about Google`s problematic firing of Dr. Gebru."

Mitchell had collaborated on the paper that prompted Gebru`s departure, and a version that published online last month without Google affiliation named "Shmargaret Shmitchell" as a co-author. (https://bit.ly/3kmXwKW)

Asked for comment, Mitchell expressed through an attorney disappointment in Dean`s critique of the paper and said her name was removed following a company order.

Alphabet Inc`s Google will change procedures before July for reviewing its scientists` work, according to a town hall recording heard by Reuters, part of an effort to quell internal tumult over the integrity of its artificial intelligence (AI) research.

Alphabet Inc`s Google will change procedures before July for reviewing its scientists` work, according to a town hall recording heard by Reuters, part of an effort to quell internal tumult over the integrity of its artificial intelligence (AI) research. In remarks at a staff meeting last Friday, Google Research executives said they were working to regain trust after the company ousted two prominent women and rejected their work, according to an hour-long recording, the content of which was confirmed by two sources. Teams are already trialing a questionnaire that will assess projects for risk and help scientists navigate reviews, research unit Chief Operating Officer Maggie Johnson said in the meeting. This initial change will roll out by the end of the second quarter, and the majority of papers will not require extra vetting, she said. Reuters reported in December that Google had introduced a "sensitive topics" review for studies involving dozens of issues, such as China or bias in its services. Internal reviewers had demanded that at least three papers on AI be modified to refrain from casting Google technology in a negative light, Reuters reported. Jeff Dean, Google`s senior vice president overseeing the division, said Friday that the "sensitive topics" review "is and was confusing" and that he had tasked a senior research director, Zoubin Ghahramani, with clarifying the rules, according to the recording. Ghahramani, a University of Cambridge professor who joined Google in September from Uber Technologies Inc, said during the town hall, "We need to be comfortable with that discomfort" of self-critical research. Google declined to comment on the Friday meeting. An internal email, seen by Reuters, offered fresh detail on Google researchers` concerns, showing exactly how Google`s legal department had modified one of the three AI papers, called "Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models." The email, dated Feb. 8, from a co-author of the paper, Nicholas Carlini, went to hundreds of colleagues, seeking to draw their attention to what he called "deeply insidious" edits by company lawyers. "Let`s be clear here," the roughly 1,200-word email said. "When we as academics write that we have a `concern` or find something `worrying` and a Google lawyer requires that we change it to sound nicer, this is very much Big Brother stepping in." Required edits, according to his email, included "negative-to-neutral" swaps such as changing the word "concerns" to "considerations," and "dangers" to "risks." Lawyers also required deleting references to Google technology; the authors` finding that AI leaked copyrighted content; and the words "breach" and "sensitive," the email said. Carlini did not respond to requests for comment. Google in answer to questions about the email disputed its contention that lawyers were trying to control the paper`s tone. The company said it had no issues with the topics investigated by the paper, but it found some legal terms used inaccurately and conducted a thorough edit as a result. RACIAL EQUITY AUDIT Google last week also named Marian Croak, a pioneer in internet audio technology and one of Google`s few Black vice presidents, to consolidate and manage 10 teams studying issues such as racial bias in algorithms and technology for disabled individuals. Croak said at Friday`s meeting that it would take time to address concerns among AI ethics researchers and mitigate damage to Google`s brand. "Please hold me fully responsible for trying to turn around that situation," she said on the recording. Johnson added that the AI organization is bringing in a consulting firm for a wide-ranging racial equity impact assessment. The first-of-its-kind audit for the department would lead to recommendations "that are going to be pretty hard," she said. Tensions in Dean`s division had deepened in December after Google let go of Timnit Gebru, co-lead of its ethical AI research team, following her refusal to retract a paper on language-generating AI. Gebru, who is Black, accused the company at the time of reviewing her work differently because of her identity and of marginalizing employees from underrepresented backgrounds. Nearly 2,700 employees signed an open letter in support of Gebru. During the town hall, Dean elaborated on what scholarship the company would support. "We want responsible AI and ethical AI investigations," Dean said, giving the example of studying technology`s environmental costs. But it is problematic to cite data "off by close to a factor of a hundred" while ignoring more accurate statistics as well as Google`s efforts to reduce emissions, he said. Dean previously has criticized Gebru`s paper for not including important findings on environmental impact. Gebru defended her paper`s citation. "It`s a really bad look for Google to come out this defensively against a paper that was cited by so many of their peer institutions," she told Reuters. Employees continued to post about their frustrations over the last month on Twitter as Google investigated and then fired ethical AI co-lead Margaret Mitchell for moving electronic files outside the company. Mitchell said on Twitter that she acted "to raise concerns about race & gender inequity, and speak up about Google`s problematic firing of Dr. Gebru." Mitchell had collaborated on the paper that prompted Gebru`s departure, and a version that published online last month without Google affiliation named "Shmargaret Shmitchell" as a co-author. (https://bit.ly/3kmXwKW) Asked for comment, Mitchell expressed through an attorney disappointment in Dean`s critique of the paper and said her name was removed following a company order.

Google pledges changes to research oversight after internal revolt

After days of heated exchange of talks with&nbsp;the social media platform, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a>, the Australian government has announced that Facebook is all set to restore news pages on its platform.

This declaration has come a few hours after Australia's Finance Minister, Simon Birmingham, had said there will surely be <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-wont-change-media-law-despite-facebooks-protest-says-fm-365326">no more amendments</a> in the bill after the government spent the weekend discussing possible amendments in the bill with Facebook officials.

"The bill as it stands ... meets the right balance," he had said in a local radio interview. As per him, the bill ensures "Australian-generated news content by Australian-generated news organisations can and should be paid for and done so in a fair and legitimate way."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebooks-news-ban-in-australia-a-costly-mistake-for-zuckerberg-365525">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebooks-news-ban-in-australia-a-costly-mistake-for-zuckerberg-365525/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, this decision was taken after the&nbsp;government agreed to amend the world's first media law which has been fiercely opposed by the tech giant. As per reports,&nbsp;Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has indicated that the government and Facebook have reached a compromise.&nbsp;

"As a result of these changes, we can now work to further our investment in public interest journalism, and restore news on Facebook for Australians in the coming days,"&nbsp;said Will Easton, managing director of Facebook Australia.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-health-ministry-freezes-ads-on-facebook-ahead-of-vaccine-rollout-365353" hreflang="en">Australia health ministry freezes ads on Facebook ahead of vaccine rollout</a>

Facebook too, issued a statement in a blog post about the decision. "We’re pleased that we’ve been able to reach an agreement with the Australian government and appreciate the constructive discussions we’ve had with Treasurer Frydenberg and Minister Fletcher over the past week," said&nbsp;William Easton, Managing Director, Facebook Australia and New Zealand.

"After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognize the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them," the statement continued.&nbsp;"As a result of these changes, we can now work to further our investment in public interest journalism and restore news on Facebook for Australians in the coming days."

After days of heated exchange of talks with the social media platform, Facebook, the Australian government has announced that Facebook is all set to restore news pages on its platform.

After days of heated exchange of talks with the social media platform, Facebook, the Australian government has announced that Facebook is all set to restore news pages on its platform. This declaration has come a few hours after Australia's Finance Minister, Simon Birmingham, had said there will surely be no more amendments in the bill after the government spent the weekend discussing possible amendments in the bill with Facebook officials. "The bill as it stands ... meets the right balance," he had said in a local radio interview. As per him, the bill ensures "Australian-generated news content by Australian-generated news organisations can and should be paid for and done so in a fair and legitimate way." WATCH| However, this decision was taken after the government agreed to amend the world's first media law which has been fiercely opposed by the tech giant. As per reports, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has indicated that the government and Facebook have reached a compromise. "As a result of these changes, we can now work to further our investment in public interest journalism, and restore news on Facebook for Australians in the coming days," said Will Easton, managing director of Facebook Australia. Also read| Australia health ministry freezes ads on Facebook ahead of vaccine rollout Facebook too, issued a statement in a blog post about the decision. "We’re pleased that we’ve been able to reach an agreement with the Australian government and appreciate the constructive discussions we’ve had with Treasurer Frydenberg and Minister Fletcher over the past week," said William Easton, Managing Director, Facebook Australia and New Zealand. "After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognize the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them," the statement continued. "As a result of these changes, we can now work to further our investment in public interest journalism and restore news on Facebook for Australians in the coming days."

Facebook to restore news pages in Australia soon, government claims

Following the fallout between the Australian government and social media platform, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a>, the country's health department has decided to no longer advertise on the platform.

This freeze of an advertisement on the popular platform has come at a time when the country has just launched its first mass <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus-vaccine">vaccination programme</a> against the deadly coronavirus.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-wont-change-media-law-despite-facebooks-protest-says-fm-365326">Australia won't change media law despite Facebook's protest, says FM</a>

Health Minister Greg Hunt said that considering the timing and the importance of the campaign, the health department will still pay to promote the ad campaign, but just not on Facebook.

"All of our funds will be used," he said. "We will continue to post on that particular channel, we just won't be boosting."

This decision has come following the decision taken by the Australian government that no more amendments will be made in the proposed media laws, despite protests from Facebook.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebooks-news-ban-in-australia-a-costly-mistake-for-zuckerberg-365525">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebooks-news-ban-in-australia-a-costly-mistake-for-zuckerberg-365525/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"On my watch, until this issue is resolved, there will not be Facebook advertising," Hunt said. "There has been none commissioned or instituted since this dispute arose. Basically you have corporate titans acting as sovereign bullies and they won't get away with it."

Facebook has meanwhile blocked all news content from its platform as a protest against the proposed media law.

The health ministry has decided to spend US$20 million on spreading public information about the coronavirus vaccine. These funds will be used for advertising everywhere except for Facebook

Following the fallout between the Australian government and social media platform, Facebook, the country's health department has decided to no longer advertise on the platform.

Following the fallout between the Australian government and social media platform, Facebook, the country's health department has decided to no longer advertise on the platform. This freeze of an advertisement on the popular platform has come at a time when the country has just launched its first mass vaccination programme against the deadly coronavirus. Also read| Australia won't change media law despite Facebook's protest, says FM Health Minister Greg Hunt said that considering the timing and the importance of the campaign, the health department will still pay to promote the ad campaign, but just not on Facebook. "All of our funds will be used," he said. "We will continue to post on that particular channel, we just won't be boosting." This decision has come following the decision taken by the Australian government that no more amendments will be made in the proposed media laws, despite protests from Facebook. WATCH| "On my watch, until this issue is resolved, there will not be Facebook advertising," Hunt said. "There has been none commissioned or instituted since this dispute arose. Basically you have corporate titans acting as sovereign bullies and they won't get away with it." Facebook has meanwhile blocked all news content from its platform as a protest against the proposed media law. The health ministry has decided to spend US$20 million on spreading public information about the coronavirus vaccine. These funds will be used for advertising everywhere except for Facebook

Australia health ministry freezes ads on Facebook ahead of vaccine rollout

After several days of talks between the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/another-allegation-made-against-man-accused-of-rape-in-australia-parliament-365316">Australian government</a> and the social media platform <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a>, Scott Morrison's government has declared that it will not change proposed media laws.

The media law in question will result in Facebook and Alphabet Inc's Google having to pay news outlet for content.

Facebook officials spent the weekend discussing possible and desired changes in the law with the officials of the Australian government.

Also read|&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-australia-hold-talks-following-news-ban-364938" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-australia-hold-talks-following-news-ban-364938&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiapvXf3vzuAhXjheYKHbhYCs04ChAWMAN6BAgHEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw2cGnsI_uX1VipZk8T9B69s" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-australia-hold-talks-following-news-ban-364938" target="_blank">Facebook,&nbsp;Australia&nbsp;hold talks following news ban</a>

Now, while the bill is scheduled for a debate in the Senate on Monday, the Finance Minister, Simon Birmingham, has said there will surely be no more amendments in the bill after this.&nbsp;

"The bill as it stands ... meets the right balance," he said in a local radio interview. As per him, the bill ensures "Australian-generated news content by Australian-generated news organisations can and should be paid for and done so in a fair and legitimate way."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebooks-news-ban-in-australia-a-costly-mistake-for-zuckerberg-365525">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebooks-news-ban-in-australia-a-costly-mistake-for-zuckerberg-365525/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

If the private negotiations fail, the laws will allow the government to appoint an arbitrator to decide content licensing fees.

"There's no reason Facebook can't do and achieve what Google already has," Birmingham said.

Meanwhile, big, global tech firms have launched a new code to curb the spread of misinformation.

Lobby group DIGI, which represents Facebook, Google, TikTok and similar online platforms on Monday said that its members have agreed to adopt an industry-wide code of practice to bring a decline in the circulation of misinformation.

The members of the group have also decided to permanently disable the accounts and 'bots' that post offensive content or participate in the circulation of misinformation.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/australia-and-facebook-held-high-stake-talks-on-content-law-365003">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/australia-and-facebook-held-high-stake-talks-on-content-law-365003/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"All signatories commit to safeguards to protect Australians against harm from online disinformation and misinformation, and adopting a range of scalable measures that reduce its spread and visibility," the group said.

The code's implementation will be monitored by the government's Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) that said the code became necessary especially after the widespread of misinformation during the Australian bushfires in 2020.

"False and misleading news and information online -- like that spread through the 2020 bushfires and the Covid-19 pandemic -- has the potential to cause serious harm to individuals, communities and society," its statement read.&nbsp;

After several days of talks between the Australian government and the social media platform Facebook, Scott Morrison's government has declared that it will not change proposed media laws.

After several days of talks between the Australian government and the social media platform Facebook, Scott Morrison's government has declared that it will not change proposed media laws. The media law in question will result in Facebook and Alphabet Inc's Google having to pay news outlet for content. Facebook officials spent the weekend discussing possible and desired changes in the law with the officials of the Australian government. Also read| Facebook, Australia hold talks following news ban Now, while the bill is scheduled for a debate in the Senate on Monday, the Finance Minister, Simon Birmingham, has said there will surely be no more amendments in the bill after this. "The bill as it stands ... meets the right balance," he said in a local radio interview. As per him, the bill ensures "Australian-generated news content by Australian-generated news organisations can and should be paid for and done so in a fair and legitimate way." WATCH| If the private negotiations fail, the laws will allow the government to appoint an arbitrator to decide content licensing fees. "There's no reason Facebook can't do and achieve what Google already has," Birmingham said. Meanwhile, big, global tech firms have launched a new code to curb the spread of misinformation. Lobby group DIGI, which represents Facebook, Google, TikTok and similar online platforms on Monday said that its members have agreed to adopt an industry-wide code of practice to bring a decline in the circulation of misinformation. The members of the group have also decided to permanently disable the accounts and 'bots' that post offensive content or participate in the circulation of misinformation. WATCH| "All signatories commit to safeguards to protect Australians against harm from online disinformation and misinformation, and adopting a range of scalable measures that reduce its spread and visibility," the group said. The code's implementation will be monitored by the government's Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) that said the code became necessary especially after the widespread of misinformation during the Australian bushfires in 2020. "False and misleading news and information online -- like that spread through the 2020 bushfires and the Covid-19 pandemic -- has the potential to cause serious harm to individuals, communities and society," its statement read.

Australia won't change media law despite Facebook's protest, says FM

Australia and Facebook conducted talks on Friday after the social media giant blacked out news for Australian netizens.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he had spoken with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to resolve the issue at the earliest and negotiations would continue in the weekend.&nbsp;

Watch |

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-are-there-alternatives-to-facebook-364918/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;&nbsp;"We talked through their remaining issues and agreed our respective teams would work through them immediately," Frydenberg was quoted as saying by news agency AFP.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-to-launch-smartwatch-with-messaging-fitness-features-363611">Facebook to launch smartwatch with messaging, fitness features</a>

Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Facebook's behaviour threatening and asked it to "come back to the table".&nbsp;

Morrison said the Australian government's decision to ask Facebook and Google to pay the media for news posted on their website has generated interest from across the world and he has also talked with Indian PM Narendra Modi and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau regarding the matter.&nbsp;

Facebook has blanked out pages of news organisations from Thursday for Australian users and blocked them from publishing any news content over the new legislation that has been approved by the lower house.&nbsp;

The social media giant has said the proposed legislation "fundamentally misunderstands" Facebook's relationship with news outlets and it has left with no choice other than blocking the news content.&nbsp;

Since the ban by Facebook to block news content came into effect, the traffic of Australian news sites at home and abroad reduced substantially, with foreign traffic coming down by more than 20 per cent per day, according to data analytics company Chartbeat.

 
&nbsp;

Australia and Facebook conducted talks on Friday after the social media giant blacked out news for Australian netizens. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he had spoken with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to resolve the issue at the earliest and negotiations would continue in the weekend.

Australia and Facebook conducted talks on Friday after the social media giant blacked out news for Australian netizens. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he had spoken with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to resolve the issue at the earliest and negotiations would continue in the weekend. Watch | "We talked through their remaining issues and agreed our respective teams would work through them immediately," Frydenberg was quoted as saying by news agency AFP. Also read | Facebook to launch smartwatch with messaging, fitness features Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Facebook's behaviour threatening and asked it to "come back to the table". Morrison said the Australian government's decision to ask Facebook and Google to pay the media for news posted on their website has generated interest from across the world and he has also talked with Indian PM Narendra Modi and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau regarding the matter. Facebook has blanked out pages of news organisations from Thursday for Australian users and blocked them from publishing any news content over the new legislation that has been approved by the lower house. The social media giant has said the proposed legislation "fundamentally misunderstands" Facebook's relationship with news outlets and it has left with no choice other than blocking the news content. Since the ban by Facebook to block news content came into effect, the traffic of Australian news sites at home and abroad reduced substantially, with foreign traffic coming down by more than 20 per cent per day, according to data analytics company Chartbeat.

Facebook, Australia hold talks following news ban

Australians woke to empty news feeds on their Facebook Inc pages on February 18 after the social media giant blocked all media content.

Australia: Govt slams FB's content blackout, states move as 'Wrong, heavy handed'

Google is phasing out user-tracking "cookies" which allow the web giant to deliver personalised ads.

The downside of employing these cookies has been that they have raised the hackles of privacy defenders. The US internet giant has been hammered by critics over user privacy, and is keenly aware of trends for legislation protecting people's data rights.

Google, only last month, unveiled the results of tests showing an alternative to the longstanding tracking practice, claiming it could improve online privacy while still enabling advertisers to serve up relevant messages.

"This approach effectively hides individuals 'in the crowd' and uses on-device processing to keep a person’s web history private on the browser," Google product manager Chetna Bindra explained in unveiling the system called Federated Learning of Cohorts&nbsp;(FLoC).

She added, "Results indicate that when it comes to generating interest-based audiences,&nbsp;FLoC can provide an effective replacement signal for third-party cookies."

Google plans to begin testing the FLoC approach with advertisers later this year with its Chrome browser.

Talking of privacy issues, some kinds of cookies -- which are text files stored when a user visits a website -- are a convenience for logins and browsing at frequently visited sites.

Anyone who has pulled up a registration page online only to have their name and address automatically entered where required has cookies to thank.&nbsp;But other kinds of cookies, especially the third-party ones, are seen by some as nefarious.

Safari and Firefox browsers have already done away with third-party cookies, but they are still used at the world's most popular browser - Chrome.

And Chrome accounted for 63 per cent of the global browser market last year, according to StatCounter.

Google is phasing out user-tracking "cookies" which allow the web giant to deliver personalised ads. The downside of employing these cookies has been that they have raised the hackles of privacy defenders.

Google is phasing out user-tracking "cookies" which allow the web giant to deliver personalised ads. The downside of employing these cookies has been that they have raised the hackles of privacy defenders. The US internet giant has been hammered by critics over user privacy, and is keenly aware of trends for legislation protecting people's data rights. Google, only last month, unveiled the results of tests showing an alternative to the longstanding tracking practice, claiming it could improve online privacy while still enabling advertisers to serve up relevant messages. "This approach effectively hides individuals 'in the crowd' and uses on-device processing to keep a person’s web history private on the browser," Google product manager Chetna Bindra explained in unveiling the system called Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC). She added, "Results indicate that when it comes to generating interest-based audiences, FLoC can provide an effective replacement signal for third-party cookies." Google plans to begin testing the FLoC approach with advertisers later this year with its Chrome browser. Talking of privacy issues, some kinds of cookies -- which are text files stored when a user visits a website -- are a convenience for logins and browsing at frequently visited sites. Anyone who has pulled up a registration page online only to have their name and address automatically entered where required has cookies to thank. But other kinds of cookies, especially the third-party ones, are seen by some as nefarious. Safari and Firefox browsers have already done away with third-party cookies, but they are still used at the world's most popular browser - Chrome. And Chrome accounted for 63 per cent of the global browser market last year, according to StatCounter.

Google phases out user-tracking 'cookies'

Alphabet Inc's Google will spend $3.8 million, including $2.6 million in back pay, to settle allegations that it underpaid women and unfairly passed over women and Asians for job openings, the US Department of Labour said on Monday.

Google to spend $3.8 million to settle accusations of hiring

Software giant Microsoft Corp is confident its search product Bing can fill the gap in Australia if&nbsp;Google&nbsp;pulls its search over required payments to media outlets, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday.

Australia has introduced laws that would force internet giant&nbsp;Google&nbsp;and social media heavyweight Facebook Inc to negotiate payments to domestic media outlets whose content links drive traffic to their platforms.

However, the Big Tech firms have called the laws unworkable and said last month they would withdraw key services from Australia if the regulations went ahead. Those services include&nbsp;Google's search engine, which has 94 per cent&nbsp;of the country's search market, according to industry data.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has since spoken with Morrison about the new rules, the tech company told Reuters, and on Monday, Morrison said the software company was ready to grow the presence of its search tool Bing, the distant No. 2 player.

"I can tell you, Microsoft's pretty confident, when I spoke to Satya," Morrison told reporters in Canberra, without giving further detail of the conversation.

"We just want the rules in the digital world to be the same that exist in the real world, in the physical world," Morrison added.

A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed the discussion took place but declined to comment, because the company was not directly involved in the laws.

"We recognise the importance of a vibrant media sector and public interest journalism in a democracy and we recognise the challenges the media sector has faced over many years through changing business models and consumer preferences," the spokeswoman said.

Google&nbsp;declined to comment.

A day earlier, Australian treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had requested a meeting over the law, and that they had talked, but that he would not back down on the change.

At a Senate hearing into the laws, Department of Treasury deputy secretary of markets Meghan Quinn said the Australian government would have limited ability to intervene if&nbsp;Google's departure hurt businesses which rely on its search function.

"The (media bargaining) code doesn't prevent the wholesale withdrawal of services, and there's difficulty in any of the legislative mechanisms we've got for someone to (be forced to) provide a service," Quinn said.

Software giant Microsoft Corp is confident its search product Bing can fill the gap in Australia if Google pulls its search over required payments to media outlets, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday.

Software giant Microsoft Corp is confident its search product Bing can fill the gap in Australia if Google pulls its search over required payments to media outlets, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday. Australia has introduced laws that would force internet giant Google and social media heavyweight Facebook Inc to negotiate payments to domestic media outlets whose content links drive traffic to their platforms. However, the Big Tech firms have called the laws unworkable and said last month they would withdraw key services from Australia if the regulations went ahead. Those services include Google's search engine, which has 94 per cent of the country's search market, according to industry data. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has since spoken with Morrison about the new rules, the tech company told Reuters, and on Monday, Morrison said the software company was ready to grow the presence of its search tool Bing, the distant No. 2 player. "I can tell you, Microsoft's pretty confident, when I spoke to Satya," Morrison told reporters in Canberra, without giving further detail of the conversation. "We just want the rules in the digital world to be the same that exist in the real world, in the physical world," Morrison added. A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed the discussion took place but declined to comment, because the company was not directly involved in the laws. "We recognise the importance of a vibrant media sector and public interest journalism in a democracy and we recognise the challenges the media sector has faced over many years through changing business models and consumer preferences," the spokeswoman said. Google declined to comment. A day earlier, Australian treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had requested a meeting over the law, and that they had talked, but that he would not back down on the change. At a Senate hearing into the laws, Department of Treasury deputy secretary of markets Meghan Quinn said the Australian government would have limited ability to intervene if Google's departure hurt businesses which rely on its search function. "The (media bargaining) code doesn't prevent the wholesale withdrawal of services, and there's difficulty in any of the legislative mechanisms we've got for someone to (be forced to) provide a service," Quinn said.

As Google eyes Australia exit, Microsoft talks Bing with Prime Minister Scott Morrison

In a major escalation, Google threatened Friday to make its search engine unavailable in Australia if the government approved legislation that would force tech companies to pay for journalism shared on their platforms.

Facebook, which appeared with Google at an Australian Senate hearing, reaffirmed a threat of its own, vowing to block users in Australia from posting or sharing links to news if the bill passed.

In both cases, the dire warnings — which one senator called blackmail — revealed the apparent willingness of Facebook and Google to hide or erase reliable sources of information for millions of people at a time when social media platforms are under fire for helping misinformation spread worldwide.

The companies argue that they already help the media industry by sending it traffic and that the bill would open them up to “unmanageable levels of financial and operational risk.” The response by Google, which controls 95% of all queries in Australia in addition to owning YouTube, has grown particularly aggressive: The company recently buried major Australian news sites in search results in what it called an “experiment.”

But the precedent of paying for journalism does not, in itself, seem to be the issue.

A few hours before Google threatened to take away its search engine in Australia, the company agreed to pay news publications in France under an agreement that is likely to lead to more deals across Europe.

The battle in Australia centers on power: who gets to decide the payments, what prompts a charge for the tech companies and when do they have to reveal changes in their algorithms.

Australia’s assertive challenge to the online giants has placed it in the vanguard of a movement to bolster a traditional news media ecosystem that America’s trillion-dollar tech companies threaten with extinction. For Google and Facebook, their intense pushback has become a focal point of their global efforts to limit regulation, as governments around the world look to rein them in.

Here’s a summary of the fight:

Rapid vs. Prolonged Negotiations

Under Australia’s proposed legislation, if media companies and platforms like Google cannot agree on a price for news content, an independent arbitration body will resolve the dispute. That could amount to a first in the world.

The agreement in France lets Google negotiate with publishers using criteria the company has established, such as the contribution to general discussion, publication volume and audience size. Disputes would most likely go to court, where they could be bogged down for years, delaying payment.

Australia’s bill would streamline the process and strengthen the weaker side — the media.

As Rod Sims, chairman of Australia’s consumer protection regulator, explained: “The aim of the code is to address the uneven bargaining position between Australian news media businesses and the big digital platforms who have clear market power.”

The tech companies say it would create an incentive for media companies to jack up prices, sending cases to an arbiter who will determine final payment. They point to a government report estimating that 75% of the negotiations could end up with arbitrators.

Critics argue that Google and Facebook are simply trying to maintain their position as the ones who get to determine what news is worth.

“It’s about the external process being imposed on them by legislation, rather than by them just being able to dole out deals as they see fit,” said Peter Lewis, director of the Center for Responsible Technology at the Australia Institute, an independent research group. “It shifts the balance of power from their hands to a third party, and that’s what they can’t countenance.”

Links vs. Previews

The fight centers in part on a debate over the nature of search results and on the question of whether tech companies should pay for every article that Australians see on their platforms.

In a submission to Australia’s Senate inquiry about the proposal, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, wrote that “the code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online.”

“The ability to link freely,” he added, “meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees, is fundamental to how the web operates.”

Melanie Silva, managing director of Google Australia and New Zealand, made the same argument Friday in the Senate and in a video posted to Twitter, where she asked people to imagine recommending a few cafes to a friend — and then getting a bill from the cafes for sharing that information.

“When you put a price on linking to certain information, you break the way search engines work,” she said. “And you no longer have a free and open web.”

Google and Facebook (along with Twitter and others), however, do not simply link. They frame the work in previews, with headlines, summaries and photos, and then curate and serve up the content while sprinkling in advertisements.

Tama Leaver, a professor of internet studies at Curtin University in Perth, noted in a recent essay that this added value lessens the likelihood of someone clicking into the article, hurting media companies while improving the tech companies’ bottom line.

“It is often in that reframing that advertisements appear, and this is where these platforms make money,” he wrote. He added that the code could be adjusted to charge the companies only when they create previews, not just links.

But Sims, the main architect of the code, said Friday in the Senate that Google and Berners-Lee were simply wrong on the details.

“The code does not require Google and Facebook to pay for linking news content,” he said. “Indeed, discussions we are aware of have focused on paying upfront lump sum amounts, not per click.”

More broadly, lawmakers and public policy experts have argued that the companies do not just share information like a friend. They harvest details about their users in order to make what they share profitable.

As Lewis at the Australia Institute put it, they don’t just give you information about where to get coffee — they follow you to the cafe, watch what you order and where you go next, then sell that knowledge to companies that want to market you something else.

Sen. Rex Patrick accused Google of pretending to be concerned about “technical precedence.” In fact, he said, it’s all about “commercial precedence” — money.

Google Australia collected roughly $3.3 billion from Australian advertisers in 2019 and paid about $77 million in taxes, with a reported profit of about $637 million.

Secret Algorithms vs. Transparency

One potentially groundbreaking element of the proposed legislation involves the secret sauce of Facebook, Google and subsidiaries like YouTube: the algorithms that determine what people see when they search or scroll through the platforms.

Early drafts of the bill would have required that tech companies give their news media partners 28 days’ notice before making any changes that would affect how users interact with their content.

Google and Facebook said that would be impossible because their algorithms are always changing in ways that can be difficult to measure for a subset like news, so in the latest draft, lawmakers limited the scope.

If the bill passes in one form or another, which seems likely, the digital platforms will have to give the media 14 days’ notice of deliberate algorithm changes that significantly affect their businesses. Even that, some critics argue, is not enough for Big Tech.

“I think Google and Facebook are seriously worried that other countries will join in Australia’s effort,” said Johan Lidberg, a professor of media at Monash University in Melbourne. “This could eventually cause substantial revenue losses globally and serious loss of control, exemplified by the algorithm issue.”

But, he added, using threats to bully lawmakers will not do them any good.

“Google’s overreaction perfectly illustrates why the code is needed,” he said, “and beyond that, the dire need for all governments, across the globe, to join in efforts in reining in and limiting the power of these companies that is completely out of hand.”

In a major escalation, Google threatened Friday to make its search engine unavailable in Australia if the government approved legislation that would force tech companies to pay for journalism shared on their platforms.

In a major escalation, Google threatened Friday to make its search engine unavailable in Australia if the government approved legislation that would force tech companies to pay for journalism shared on their platforms. Facebook, which appeared with Google at an Australian Senate hearing, reaffirmed a threat of its own, vowing to block users in Australia from posting or sharing links to news if the bill passed. In both cases, the dire warnings — which one senator called blackmail — revealed the apparent willingness of Facebook and Google to hide or erase reliable sources of information for millions of people at a time when social media platforms are under fire for helping misinformation spread worldwide. The companies argue that they already help the media industry by sending it traffic and that the bill would open them up to “unmanageable levels of financial and operational risk.” The response by Google, which controls 95% of all queries in Australia in addition to owning YouTube, has grown particularly aggressive: The company recently buried major Australian news sites in search results in what it called an “experiment.” But the precedent of paying for journalism does not, in itself, seem to be the issue. A few hours before Google threatened to take away its search engine in Australia, the company agreed to pay news publications in France under an agreement that is likely to lead to more deals across Europe. The battle in Australia centers on power: who gets to decide the payments, what prompts a charge for the tech companies and when do they have to reveal changes in their algorithms. Australia’s assertive challenge to the online giants has placed it in the vanguard of a movement to bolster a traditional news media ecosystem that America’s trillion-dollar tech companies threaten with extinction. For Google and Facebook, their intense pushback has become a focal point of their global efforts to limit regulation, as governments around the world look to rein them in. Here’s a summary of the fight: Rapid vs. Prolonged Negotiations Under Australia’s proposed legislation, if media companies and platforms like Google cannot agree on a price for news content, an independent arbitration body will resolve the dispute. That could amount to a first in the world. The agreement in France lets Google negotiate with publishers using criteria the company has established, such as the contribution to general discussion, publication volume and audience size. Disputes would most likely go to court, where they could be bogged down for years, delaying payment. Australia’s bill would streamline the process and strengthen the weaker side — the media. As Rod Sims, chairman of Australia’s consumer protection regulator, explained: “The aim of the code is to address the uneven bargaining position between Australian news media businesses and the big digital platforms who have clear market power.” The tech companies say it would create an incentive for media companies to jack up prices, sending cases to an arbiter who will determine final payment. They point to a government report estimating that 75% of the negotiations could end up with arbitrators. Critics argue that Google and Facebook are simply trying to maintain their position as the ones who get to determine what news is worth. “It’s about the external process being imposed on them by legislation, rather than by them just being able to dole out deals as they see fit,” said Peter Lewis, director of the Center for Responsible Technology at the Australia Institute, an independent research group. “It shifts the balance of power from their hands to a third party, and that’s what they can’t countenance.” Links vs. Previews The fight centers in part on a debate over the nature of search results and on the question of whether tech companies should pay for every article that Australians see on their platforms. In a submission to Australia’s Senate inquiry about the proposal, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, wrote that “the code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online.” “The ability to link freely,” he added, “meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees, is fundamental to how the web operates.” Melanie Silva, managing director of Google Australia and New Zealand, made the same argument Friday in the Senate and in a video posted to Twitter, where she asked people to imagine recommending a few cafes to a friend — and then getting a bill from the cafes for sharing that information. “When you put a price on linking to certain information, you break the way search engines work,” she said. “And you no longer have a free and open web.” Google and Facebook (along with Twitter and others), however, do not simply link. They frame the work in previews, with headlines, summaries and photos, and then curate and serve up the content while sprinkling in advertisements. Tama Leaver, a professor of internet studies at Curtin University in Perth, noted in a recent essay that this added value lessens the likelihood of someone clicking into the article, hurting media companies while improving the tech companies’ bottom line. “It is often in that reframing that advertisements appear, and this is where these platforms make money,” he wrote. He added that the code could be adjusted to charge the companies only when they create previews, not just links. But Sims, the main architect of the code, said Friday in the Senate that Google and Berners-Lee were simply wrong on the details. “The code does not require Google and Facebook to pay for linking news content,” he said. “Indeed, discussions we are aware of have focused on paying upfront lump sum amounts, not per click.” More broadly, lawmakers and public policy experts have argued that the companies do not just share information like a friend. They harvest details about their users in order to make what they share profitable. As Lewis at the Australia Institute put it, they don’t just give you information about where to get coffee — they follow you to the cafe, watch what you order and where you go next, then sell that knowledge to companies that want to market you something else. Sen. Rex Patrick accused Google of pretending to be concerned about “technical precedence.” In fact, he said, it’s all about “commercial precedence” — money. Google Australia collected roughly $3.3 billion from Australian advertisers in 2019 and paid about $77 million in taxes, with a reported profit of about $637 million. Secret Algorithms vs. Transparency One potentially groundbreaking element of the proposed legislation involves the secret sauce of Facebook, Google and subsidiaries like YouTube: the algorithms that determine what people see when they search or scroll through the platforms. Early drafts of the bill would have required that tech companies give their news media partners 28 days’ notice before making any changes that would affect how users interact with their content. Google and Facebook said that would be impossible because their algorithms are always changing in ways that can be difficult to measure for a subset like news, so in the latest draft, lawmakers limited the scope. If the bill passes in one form or another, which seems likely, the digital platforms will have to give the media 14 days’ notice of deliberate algorithm changes that significantly affect their businesses. Even that, some critics argue, is not enough for Big Tech. “I think Google and Facebook are seriously worried that other countries will join in Australia’s effort,” said Johan Lidberg, a professor of media at Monash University in Melbourne. “This could eventually cause substantial revenue losses globally and serious loss of control, exemplified by the algorithm issue.” But, he added, using threats to bully lawmakers will not do them any good. “Google’s overreaction perfectly illustrates why the code is needed,” he said, “and beyond that, the dire need for all governments, across the globe, to join in efforts in reining in and limiting the power of these companies that is completely out of hand.”

An Australia with no Google? The bitter fight behind a drastic threat

google

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