It’s hard to decide who is having a better troll moment on Twitter this week: Jeff Bezos or Lil Nas X.

Both the internet zillionaire and the puckish rapper spent the last week trying to bend public sentiment to their will, using sharp digital techniques that left fans cheering, detractors screaming and the rest of us wondering what the heck just happened.

Two words: Clapback branding.

Since founding Amazon in the mid-90s, Mr. Bezos has gone from being an aw-shucks, squishy, pleated-khaki-wearing geek to a kind of Lex Luthor-style tech god — all muscles, tightly fitted suits and sheen.

He has led a surgical and controlled effort to press the company’s interests through its huge growth and disquieting disruptions. And in the face of attacks — even unhinged ones, like those from former President Donald Trump — Mr. Bezos and his deputies have mostly said little as Amazon relentlessly marched to domination in its arenas. (One exception was Mr. Bezos’s angry public response to the release of sexts he had sent to his current partner.)

The backdrop for the recent series of pugnacious tweets was a closely watched labor showdown at an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Ala. Workers there have voted on whether to unionize — results are expected in the coming days.

For organized labor, the voting is a test of its appeal in the ever-growing digital economy. And for Amazon, the result will be a measure of its aggressive expansion strategy. The company also has its eyes on Washington, where there is increasing appetite for regulation of Big Tech.

In short, both organized labor and Amazon view the Alabama battle as a fight for hearts and minds, not only there, but across the whole country.

The fight over worker rights at Amazon has been brewing for a while. The company is on its way to becoming one of the nation’s largest employers, having &lt;a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/pushed-by-pandemic-amazon-goes-on-a-hiring-spree-without-equal.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;added hundreds of thousands&lt;/a&gt; of workers over the last year of pandemic — reaching close to 1.3 million for its full- and part-time staff members — as demand for its products and services swelled.

That has made it an enticing target for unionization, especially as complaints about working conditions at the company have increased in recent years. Many workers are unhappy with how much they are monitored, the unsustainable pace and the physical toll of the work.

Amazon had moved to diminish criticism over its treatment of workers nearly three years ago by increasing its minimum wage to $15 an hour and expanding health benefits. That wasn’t enough.

A range of powerful politicians from both sides of the aisle have weighed in over the years, usually to criticize the company. Most of the time, Amazon has remained tight-lipped publicly. That changed last week when the company decided to respond in a combative way to criticism delivered by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

The powerful head of the consumer business, Dave Clark, addressed Mr. Sanders’s trip to meet Amazon workers in the state with max snark: “I welcome @SenSanders to Birmingham and appreciate his push for a progressive workplace. I often say we are the Bernie Sanders of employers, but that’s not quite right because we actually deliver a progressive workplace for our constituents: a $15 minimum wage, health care from day one, career progression, and a safe and inclusive work environment.”

It was obnoxious enough, but calm compared to the Trumpian style over at Amazon News’s handle, which went after Ms. Warren, a perpetual thorn in tech’s side:

“This is extraordinary and revealing. One of the most powerful politicians in the United States just said she’s going to break up an American company so that they can’t criticize her anymore.”

It went on and on, dripping with the kind of bad-ittude you rarely see from a major corporation.

Here’s what was more extraordinary — and revealing — to me: One of the most powerful companies in the world could not take criticism from politicians without acting like one of the biggest babies in the world.

At first, it seemed like a bonkers strategy, and I immediately got numerous texts from high level and tough public relations folks in tech, all of whom were also dumbfounded. One savvy P.R. pro at a big tech company wrote to me: “Those Amazon tweets are malpractice. They are letting internal frustrations drive external messaging. Total lack of discipline.”

Indeed, it all felt oddly emotional and risky, which is why it was clear that the decision to launch such attacks could have been made only by someone who never suffers when mistakes are made: Mr. Bezos.

Why would he take such an approach?

I don’t think his intention was to influence the union vote in Alabama. Instead, the goal was to goad progressives into proposing legislation around things like data privacy and a $15 federal minimum wage that Mr. Bezos knows cannot pass without being watered down and, thus, made less dangerous to giants like Amazon.

After gaining immense power in the pandemic and becoming one of the best-liked brands around, the company is now saying to Washington legislators, who have dragged their feet and held endless and largely useless hearings about how to deal with tech: I dare you to regulate us.

For Amazon, weak regulation would certainly be much better than having to talk about the very real human toll that free shipping might have on its workers. It’s an attitude that we will see adopted by a lot more tech leaders who are going to try to use the momentum for regulation in their favor, rather than let it run over them.

In a recent congressional hearing, for example, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, sheepishly proposed changes to Section 230 of the 1996 Federal Communications Act, which gives platforms broad immunity for content posted on their sites. Many observers felt, though, that Mr. Zuckerberg’s proposals were a smoke screen that would ultimately benefit Big Tech companies like Facebook.

It’s high-risk, but possibly high reward, which has been Mr. Bezos brand for his entire career, even before he was armed with all this power and money.

Most of the rest of tech has opted to put on sackcloth and ashes and make a million meaningless apologies to the public and Congress for a wide variety of mishaps over the years. But Mr. Bezos is being deliberately provocative in an attempt to gain leverage by pointing the blame back at legislators. He’s accusing them of all talk and no action.

It’s reminded me a lot of Lil Nas X, whom The New York Times dubbed “Clapback Champ” this week for his rollout of a new music video and single, “Montero (Call Me by My Name).”

The erotic video is primed to attract all manner of pearl-clutching, with its pole-dancing in Hell, and its accompanying release of limited-edition sneakers called Satan Shoes, which include a drop of blood in them.

“The song, the video, the shoes — they are bait,” The Times said about Lil Nas X. “He is a grade-A internet manipulator and, provided all the tools and resources typically reserved for long-established pop superstars, he is perfectly suited to dominate the moment.”

That’s exactly the right way to describe Lil Nas X — and Mr. Bezos.

(Kara Swisher is the host of “Sway,” a New York Times Opinion podcast, and a contributing writer for The Times. She has reported on technology and technology companies since the early days of the internet.)

It’s hard to decide who is having a better troll moment on Twitter this week: Jeff Bezos or Lil Nas X. Both the internet zillionaire and the puckish rapper spent the last week trying to bend public sentiment to their will, using sharp digital techniques that left fans cheering, detractors screaming and the rest of us wondering what the heck just happened.

It’s hard to decide who is having a better troll moment on Twitter this week: Jeff Bezos or Lil Nas X. Both the internet zillionaire and the puckish rapper spent the last week trying to bend public sentiment to their will, using sharp digital techniques that left fans cheering, detractors screaming and the rest of us wondering what the heck just happened. Two words: Clapback branding. Since founding Amazon in the mid-90s, Mr. Bezos has gone from being an aw-shucks, squishy, pleated-khaki-wearing geek to a kind of Lex Luthor-style tech god — all muscles, tightly fitted suits and sheen. He has led a surgical and controlled effort to press the company’s interests through its huge growth and disquieting disruptions. And in the face of attacks — even unhinged ones, like those from former President Donald Trump — Mr. Bezos and his deputies have mostly said little as Amazon relentlessly marched to domination in its arenas. (One exception was Mr. Bezos’s angry public response to the release of sexts he had sent to his current partner.) The backdrop for the recent series of pugnacious tweets was a closely watched labor showdown at an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Ala. Workers there have voted on whether to unionize — results are expected in the coming days. For organized labor, the voting is a test of its appeal in the ever-growing digital economy. And for Amazon, the result will be a measure of its aggressive expansion strategy. The company also has its eyes on Washington, where there is increasing appetite for regulation of Big Tech. In short, both organized labor and Amazon view the Alabama battle as a fight for hearts and minds, not only there, but across the whole country. The fight over worker rights at Amazon has been brewing for a while. The company is on its way to becoming one of the nation’s largest employers, having <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/pushed-by-pandemic-amazon-goes-on-a-hiring-spree-without-equal.html" rel="nofollow">added hundreds of thousands</a> of workers over the last year of pandemic — reaching close to 1.3 million for its full- and part-time staff members — as demand for its products and services swelled. That has made it an enticing target for unionization, especially as complaints about working conditions at the company have increased in recent years. Many workers are unhappy with how much they are monitored, the unsustainable pace and the physical toll of the work. Amazon had moved to diminish criticism over its treatment of workers nearly three years ago by increasing its minimum wage to $15 an hour and expanding health benefits. That wasn’t enough. A range of powerful politicians from both sides of the aisle have weighed in over the years, usually to criticize the company. Most of the time, Amazon has remained tight-lipped publicly. That changed last week when the company decided to respond in a combative way to criticism delivered by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The powerful head of the consumer business, Dave Clark, addressed Mr. Sanders’s trip to meet Amazon workers in the state with max snark: “I welcome @SenSanders to Birmingham and appreciate his push for a progressive workplace. I often say we are the Bernie Sanders of employers, but that’s not quite right because we actually deliver a progressive workplace for our constituents: a $15 minimum wage, health care from day one, career progression, and a safe and inclusive work environment.” It was obnoxious enough, but calm compared to the Trumpian style over at Amazon News’s handle, which went after Ms. Warren, a perpetual thorn in tech’s side: “This is extraordinary and revealing. One of the most powerful politicians in the United States just said she’s going to break up an American company so that they can’t criticize her anymore.” It went on and on, dripping with the kind of bad-ittude you rarely see from a major corporation. Here’s what was more extraordinary — and revealing — to me: One of the most powerful companies in the world could not take criticism from politicians without acting like one of the biggest babies in the world. At first, it seemed like a bonkers strategy, and I immediately got numerous texts from high level and tough public relations folks in tech, all of whom were also dumbfounded. One savvy P.R. pro at a big tech company wrote to me: “Those Amazon tweets are malpractice. They are letting internal frustrations drive external messaging. Total lack of discipline.” Indeed, it all felt oddly emotional and risky, which is why it was clear that the decision to launch such attacks could have been made only by someone who never suffers when mistakes are made: Mr. Bezos. Why would he take such an approach? I don’t think his intention was to influence the union vote in Alabama. Instead, the goal was to goad progressives into proposing legislation around things like data privacy and a $15 federal minimum wage that Mr. Bezos knows cannot pass without being watered down and, thus, made less dangerous to giants like Amazon. After gaining immense power in the pandemic and becoming one of the best-liked brands around, the company is now saying to Washington legislators, who have dragged their feet and held endless and largely useless hearings about how to deal with tech: I dare you to regulate us. For Amazon, weak regulation would certainly be much better than having to talk about the very real human toll that free shipping might have on its workers. It’s an attitude that we will see adopted by a lot more tech leaders who are going to try to use the momentum for regulation in their favor, rather than let it run over them. In a recent congressional hearing, for example, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, sheepishly proposed changes to Section 230 of the 1996 Federal Communications Act, which gives platforms broad immunity for content posted on their sites. Many observers felt, though, that Mr. Zuckerberg’s proposals were a smoke screen that would ultimately benefit Big Tech companies like Facebook. It’s high-risk, but possibly high reward, which has been Mr. Bezos brand for his entire career, even before he was armed with all this power and money. Most of the rest of tech has opted to put on sackcloth and ashes and make a million meaningless apologies to the public and Congress for a wide variety of mishaps over the years. But Mr. Bezos is being deliberately provocative in an attempt to gain leverage by pointing the blame back at legislators. He’s accusing them of all talk and no action. It’s reminded me a lot of Lil Nas X, whom The New York Times dubbed “Clapback Champ” this week for his rollout of a new music video and single, “Montero (Call Me by My Name).” The erotic video is primed to attract all manner of pearl-clutching, with its pole-dancing in Hell, and its accompanying release of limited-edition sneakers called Satan Shoes, which include a drop of blood in them. “The song, the video, the shoes — they are bait,” The Times said about Lil Nas X. “He is a grade-A internet manipulator and, provided all the tools and resources typically reserved for long-established pop superstars, he is perfectly suited to dominate the moment.” That’s exactly the right way to describe Lil Nas X — and Mr. Bezos. (Kara Swisher is the host of “Sway,” a New York Times Opinion podcast, and a contributing writer for The Times. She has reported on technology and technology companies since the early days of the internet.)

Jeff Bezos is taunting politicians. Will they take the bait?

China is planning to establish a joint venture with its tech giants. It is to oversee the data that is collected from hundreds of millions of consumers.

World Business Watch: China plans to control tech firms' data

The Chinese Communist Party is clamping down on the national tech giants and the tech giants are bracing for a regulatory lockdown in China.

Chinese govt clamps down on the national tech giants

Chinese regulators have fined 12 companies. A report claims Alibaba is being asked to sell its media assets. Brands like BMW and Kohler are being criticised for using facial recognition technology. WION's Palki Sharma tells you more about China's big business crackdown.

Gravitas: Big business faces a crackdown in China

China is extending its crackdown and tech giants worry about their growing influence. Now Tencent's holding shed about $60 Billion from its market value as its share price slid over concerns of greater regulator scrutiny. Alibaba is also being forced to sell its media assets.

China: Alibaba being forced to sell its media assets

Tencent holdings have shed around $60 billion on Monday from its market value due to concerns that the Chinese authorities will ramp up scrutiny of the tech giant.

Tencent shed $60 bn in share value as investors fear Chinese govt crackdown

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

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

The dream run could soon be over for Tech Giants in India. New Delhi has unveiled a new set of guidelines to rein in online platforms. WION's Palki Sharma gets you the big takeaways.

Gravitas: India's new social Media guidelines

The dream run of tech giants in India could soon be over as the government has unveiled a new set of guidelines. Content will now be regulated. Dispute resolution will be swift and trouble-makers will not be protected. This is India's playbook to rein in big tech. It's a template that you will probably see more and more countries adopt.&nbsp;

The battles lines have been drawn after more than a decade of unchecked expansion. The walls are closing in on tech giants. The latest blow was dealt by India. New guidelines have been introduced. These tough ones will rein in the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Three months from now, the new digital regime will take effect.&nbsp;

it will make the Indian state, a stakeholder in content regulation. The full draft is yet to be released but a few provisions stand out.&nbsp;

First, the removal of objectionable content and complaints will have to be registered in 24 hours. Following which, there is a 15-day deadline for redressal but if the content is highly provocative or hurtful as it must be taken down in 24 hours.&nbsp;

These complaints will be compiled by a grievance officer, who must reside in India. All social media companies will have to produce a monthly compliance report. How many complaints were registered? In how many cases action was taken?&nbsp;

They can't protect the trouble-makers as well. If an Indian court or the government wants to trace content on social media, the companies will have to take names. Where did the objectionable content emerge? Which accounts amplified it? Information that they have always denied. Big tech does not have a fixed yardstick. In Europe and the US, they often submit to government scrutiny.&nbsp;

Elsewhere, they run riot, stealing private data and fuelling propaganda.&nbsp;

Ravi Shankar Prasad, law minister, India said, "Every social media platforms are welcome in India, but, with utmost respect, I would like to say that there shouldn't be double standards. If an attack is there on Capitol Hill in Congress, then social media supports the police action but if there's an aggressive attack on the Red Fort, the symbol of India's freedom where our Prime Minister hoists the National Flag, you have double standards. this is plainly unacceptable."&nbsp;

There are new rules for streaming services as well. They will be overseen by a self-regulatory body headed by a retired supreme court or high court judge.&nbsp;

The content will no longer be one size fits all. There will be five categories based on age, such as universal, aged 7+, 13+, 16+ and adult. There will be an exhaustive age verification process for adult content. &nbsp;

These guidelines are in a way unprecedented in most parts of the world. Social media is internet's wilderness, a land beyond laws. For years, tech giants have fought against checks but now the movement has gone global. Compliance is the only option. Facebook's reaction to the new guidelines says it all. "We have always been clear as a company that we welcome regulations that set guidelines for addressing today’s toughest challenges on the internet," it said.&nbsp;

India's new guidelines could become a global playbook. One thing's for sure, tech giants are no more the darlings of the internet but the question is can they avoid becoming its scourge?&nbsp;

The dream run of tech giants in India could soon be over as the government has unveiled a new set of guidelines. Content will now be regulated. Dispute resolution will be swift and trouble-makers will not be protected.

The dream run of tech giants in India could soon be over as the government has unveiled a new set of guidelines. Content will now be regulated. Dispute resolution will be swift and trouble-makers will not be protected. This is India's playbook to rein in big tech. It's a template that you will probably see more and more countries adopt. The battles lines have been drawn after more than a decade of unchecked expansion. The walls are closing in on tech giants. The latest blow was dealt by India. New guidelines have been introduced. These tough ones will rein in the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Three months from now, the new digital regime will take effect. it will make the Indian state, a stakeholder in content regulation. The full draft is yet to be released but a few provisions stand out. First, the removal of objectionable content and complaints will have to be registered in 24 hours. Following which, there is a 15-day deadline for redressal but if the content is highly provocative or hurtful as it must be taken down in 24 hours. These complaints will be compiled by a grievance officer, who must reside in India. All social media companies will have to produce a monthly compliance report. How many complaints were registered? In how many cases action was taken? They can't protect the trouble-makers as well. If an Indian court or the government wants to trace content on social media, the companies will have to take names. Where did the objectionable content emerge? Which accounts amplified it? Information that they have always denied. Big tech does not have a fixed yardstick. In Europe and the US, they often submit to government scrutiny. Elsewhere, they run riot, stealing private data and fuelling propaganda. Ravi Shankar Prasad, law minister, India said, "Every social media platforms are welcome in India, but, with utmost respect, I would like to say that there shouldn't be double standards. If an attack is there on Capitol Hill in Congress, then social media supports the police action but if there's an aggressive attack on the Red Fort, the symbol of India's freedom where our Prime Minister hoists the National Flag, you have double standards. this is plainly unacceptable." There are new rules for streaming services as well. They will be overseen by a self-regulatory body headed by a retired supreme court or high court judge. The content will no longer be one size fits all. There will be five categories based on age, such as universal, aged 7+, 13+, 16+ and adult. There will be an exhaustive age verification process for adult content. These guidelines are in a way unprecedented in most parts of the world. Social media is internet's wilderness, a land beyond laws. For years, tech giants have fought against checks but now the movement has gone global. Compliance is the only option. Facebook's reaction to the new guidelines says it all. "We have always been clear as a company that we welcome regulations that set guidelines for addressing today’s toughest challenges on the internet," it said. India's new guidelines could become a global playbook. One thing's for sure, tech giants are no more the darlings of the internet but the question is can they avoid becoming its scourge?

India's new guidelines could become a global playbook 

The unchecked power of tech giants poses a threat not just to users and governments but also to small businesses. &nbsp;&nbsp;

A statement by Apple CEO Tim Cook has confirmed that Apple buys a new company every month. While the acquisition strategy is aimed at offering better services, the tech giants are killing competition by making one sale at a time.&nbsp;

The most important question is that is it time to break up the big tech?&nbsp;

Turi Inc was once a promising artificial intelligence startup in Seattle. The company helped create software that uses machine learning. Its technology was so promising that Apple bought the company, paying a record $200 million for it. It's one of the many companies that Apple has acquired over the last few years. Buying companies is not new for tech giants but at the speed at which, they are buying competitors is alarming.&nbsp;

Apple chief Tim Cook revealed that they have acquired over 100 companies in nearly six years. It means they are buying one company every three to four weeks. It includes the $3 billion takeover of headphone maker Beats and $400 million takeover of music recognition app Shazam.&nbsp;

Apple isn't the only one. Remember when Facebook was threatened by Instagram? It ended up acquiring the company in 2012. The story was similar for Whatsapp. It posed a challenge, so Facebook bought it too in 2014.&nbsp;

Big tech giants are on an acquisition spree. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines. The idea is simple to eliminate potential rivals, kill innovation and poach talent from smaller companies.&nbsp;

At the centre of this is big tech monopoly. The last two decades have witnessed the rise of five major global tech giants - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. Today, these tech giants wield too much power. Each of them is monopolistic in their own domain.&nbsp;

They exercise enormous power over our digital lives, controlling the way we navigate through the web, etc. Some are even trying to manipulate the way democracies are run. Others have taken privacy of users for granted. &nbsp;The way to restore the power balance is to break up big tech. Current US anti-trust laws allow federal regulators to break up mergers, a move that could promote healthy competition in the market for global regulators, breaking up monopolies needs a new legal toolbox. Either way, the idea is to level the playing field and protect the future of the internet.&nbsp;

The unchecked power of tech giants poses a threat not just to users and governments but also to small businesses. A statement by Apple CEO Tim Cook has confirmed that Apple buys a new company every month.

The unchecked power of tech giants poses a threat not just to users and governments but also to small businesses. A statement by Apple CEO Tim Cook has confirmed that Apple buys a new company every month. While the acquisition strategy is aimed at offering better services, the tech giants are killing competition by making one sale at a time. The most important question is that is it time to break up the big tech? Turi Inc was once a promising artificial intelligence startup in Seattle. The company helped create software that uses machine learning. Its technology was so promising that Apple bought the company, paying a record $200 million for it. It's one of the many companies that Apple has acquired over the last few years. Buying companies is not new for tech giants but at the speed at which, they are buying competitors is alarming. Apple chief Tim Cook revealed that they have acquired over 100 companies in nearly six years. It means they are buying one company every three to four weeks. It includes the $3 billion takeover of headphone maker Beats and $400 million takeover of music recognition app Shazam. Apple isn't the only one. Remember when Facebook was threatened by Instagram? It ended up acquiring the company in 2012. The story was similar for Whatsapp. It posed a challenge, so Facebook bought it too in 2014. Big tech giants are on an acquisition spree. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines. The idea is simple to eliminate potential rivals, kill innovation and poach talent from smaller companies. At the centre of this is big tech monopoly. The last two decades have witnessed the rise of five major global tech giants - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. Today, these tech giants wield too much power. Each of them is monopolistic in their own domain. They exercise enormous power over our digital lives, controlling the way we navigate through the web, etc. Some are even trying to manipulate the way democracies are run. Others have taken privacy of users for granted. The way to restore the power balance is to break up big tech. Current US anti-trust laws allow federal regulators to break up mergers, a move that could promote healthy competition in the market for global regulators, breaking up monopolies needs a new legal toolbox. Either way, the idea is to level the playing field and protect the future of the internet.

Break up mergers to check tech giants’ growing power  

Facebook has friended Australia again. But more publishers are now demanding payment from Tech Giants around the world. WION's Palki Sharma tells you how Europe could be the next battleground for big tech.

Gravitas | Tech Giants paying for news: An inevitable?

Canada and Australia have now teamed up to make tech giants pay media companies for their content. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Australian counterpart Scott Morrison have agreed to co-ordinate their efforts against the Tech companies like Facebook, Google and others.

WION Fineprint: Canada-Australia team up to make tech giants pay

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

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

China's market regulator Sunday released new anti-monopoly rules that stand to tighten existing restrictions faced by the country's tech giants.

The new guidelines formalise an earlier anti-monopoly draft law released in November, and clarify a series of monopolistic practices that regulators plan to crack down on.

The said rules are expected to put new pressure on the country's leading internet services, including e-commerce sites such as Alibaba Group's Taobao and Tmall marketplaces or JD.com, or payment services like Ant Group's Alipay or Tencent Holding's WeChat Pay.

The guidelines bar companies from a range of behaviour, including forcing merchants to choose between the country's top internet players, a long-time practice in the market.

The regulator, SAMR, said the latest guidelines would "stop monopolistic behaviours in the platform economy and protect fair competition in the market." The notice also said it would stop companies from price fixing, restricting technologies and using data and algorithms to manipulate the market.

Chinese regulators, in December, launched an antitrust investigation into Alibaba Group following the dramatic suspension of the $37 billion initial public offering plan of its payment affiliate, Ant Group.

China's market regulator Sunday released new anti-monopoly rules that stand to tighten existing restrictions faced by the country's tech giants. The new guidelines formalise an earlier anti-monopoly draft law released in November, and clarify a series of monopolistic practices that regulators plan to crack down on.

China's market regulator Sunday released new anti-monopoly rules that stand to tighten existing restrictions faced by the country's tech giants. The new guidelines formalise an earlier anti-monopoly draft law released in November, and clarify a series of monopolistic practices that regulators plan to crack down on. The said rules are expected to put new pressure on the country's leading internet services, including e-commerce sites such as Alibaba Group's Taobao and Tmall marketplaces or JD.com, or payment services like Ant Group's Alipay or Tencent Holding's WeChat Pay. The guidelines bar companies from a range of behaviour, including forcing merchants to choose between the country's top internet players, a long-time practice in the market. The regulator, SAMR, said the latest guidelines would "stop monopolistic behaviours in the platform economy and protect fair competition in the market." The notice also said it would stop companies from price fixing, restricting technologies and using data and algorithms to manipulate the market. Chinese regulators, in December, launched an antitrust investigation into Alibaba Group following the dramatic suspension of the $37 billion initial public offering plan of its payment affiliate, Ant Group.

China tightens curbs faced by tech giants, issues new guidelines

An Australian regulator is mulling more protections for internet users. It is considering new rules that could give users the right to choose the data tech giants can share with advertisers.

Gravitas: Australia takes another aim at Tech Giants

China plans to push tech giants including Ant Group, Tencent and JD.com to share consumer loan data to prevent excess borrowing and fraud, two people with knowledge of the matter said, in Beijing`s latest tightening of scrutiny.

The plan, if implemented, would effectively end the government`s laissez-faire approach to the industry. Large Internet platforms have tended to resist handing over their data, a crucial asset that helps them run operations, manage risk and lure new customers.

Chinese regulators, including the central bank, plan to instruct internet platforms to feed their vast loan data to some of the nationwide credit agencies, the people said.

The agencies, which are run or backed by the People`s Bank of China (PBOC), will share the data more widely with&nbsp;banks and other lenders to adequately evaluate risks and prevent over-borrowing, the people said.

Ant and Tencent declined to comment.

JD.com and the PBOC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The people declined to be identified as they were not authorised to speak to the media. Details of the regulatory proposal to include Tencent and JD.com in the loan data sharing arrangement have not been reported.

The plan adds to recent proposals to sharpen scrutiny of the technology champions and rein in empire building, mainly in the financial sector; the shift helped bring about the dramatic collapse of fintech giant Ant`s $37 billion IPO in November.

Since then, the regulators have launched an antitrust probe into Ant`s former parent Alibaba and ordered the fintech company to shake up its lending and other consumer finance businesses.

The latest regulatory proposal for internet companies also comes as Beijing grows wary of loose risk controls at banks, mainly smaller ones, in terms of consumer loans and their excessive reliance on platforms such as Ant to find customers.

"Smaller banks are generally in a weaker position when they partner with fintech giants like Ant. They have heavily relied on Ant`s data to underwrite loans and manage risks," said one senior regulator.

"When defaults happen, they have to shoulder most of the losses," said the regulator, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter. "It`s crucial for lenders to have better access to more comprehensive and detailed credit data on borrowers."

CUSTOMER CREDITWORTHINESS

The latest regulatory attempt would likely dampen the scale and profitability of tech majors` credit businesses. That area is a cash cow, as the companies levy high service fees on banks in exchange for access to millions of customers using propriety data.

Via its super-app Alipay, Ant collects the data of more than 1 billion people, many of whom are young and internet-savvy users without credit cards or sufficient credit records with banks, as well as 80 million merchants, according to the company`s prospectus and analysts.

Ant runs Sesame Credit, one of China`s biggest private credit-rating platforms, with proprietary algorithms and methodology that score people and small businesses based on their use of Ant-linked services.

The firm offers limited borrower information to about 100 banks, and takes the so-called "technology service fees" - a 30%-40% cut, on average, of the interest on loans it facilitates, analysts estimated.

Ant`s consumer lending balance stood at 1.7 trillion yuan ($263 billion) as of the end of June, accounting for 21% of all short-term consumer loans issued by Chinese deposit-taking financial institutions, according to its IPO prospectus and PBOC data.

Compared with Ant, rivals Tencent and JD.com run relatively smaller consumer-credit business.

Tencent`s private lender WeBank has operated micro-loans unit Weilidai since 2015, which made over 460 million loan drawdowns worth a total of more than 3.7 trillion yuan as of the end of 2019, according to WeBank`s 2019 annual report.

JD.com`s fintech arm, JD Digits, operates two platforms - Baitiao and Jintiao - which had a combined 70 million annual active users and took in a total of 4.4 billion yuan in technology service fees during the first half of 2020.

Jintiao facilitated consumer loans worth only 261 billion yuan in the same period of last year, as per JD Digits` prospectus.

China plans to push tech giants including Ant Group, Tencent and JD.com to share consumer loan data to prevent excess borrowing and fraud, two people with knowledge of the matter said, in Beijing`s latest tightening of scrutiny.

China plans to push tech giants including Ant Group, Tencent and JD.com to share consumer loan data to prevent excess borrowing and fraud, two people with knowledge of the matter said, in Beijing`s latest tightening of scrutiny. The plan, if implemented, would effectively end the government`s laissez-faire approach to the industry. Large Internet platforms have tended to resist handing over their data, a crucial asset that helps them run operations, manage risk and lure new customers. Chinese regulators, including the central bank, plan to instruct internet platforms to feed their vast loan data to some of the nationwide credit agencies, the people said. The agencies, which are run or backed by the People`s Bank of China (PBOC), will share the data more widely with banks and other lenders to adequately evaluate risks and prevent over-borrowing, the people said. Ant and Tencent declined to comment. JD.com and the PBOC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The people declined to be identified as they were not authorised to speak to the media. Details of the regulatory proposal to include Tencent and JD.com in the loan data sharing arrangement have not been reported. The plan adds to recent proposals to sharpen scrutiny of the technology champions and rein in empire building, mainly in the financial sector; the shift helped bring about the dramatic collapse of fintech giant Ant`s $37 billion IPO in November. Since then, the regulators have launched an antitrust probe into Ant`s former parent Alibaba and ordered the fintech company to shake up its lending and other consumer finance businesses. The latest regulatory proposal for internet companies also comes as Beijing grows wary of loose risk controls at banks, mainly smaller ones, in terms of consumer loans and their excessive reliance on platforms such as Ant to find customers. "Smaller banks are generally in a weaker position when they partner with fintech giants like Ant. They have heavily relied on Ant`s data to underwrite loans and manage risks," said one senior regulator. "When defaults happen, they have to shoulder most of the losses," said the regulator, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter. "It`s crucial for lenders to have better access to more comprehensive and detailed credit data on borrowers." CUSTOMER CREDITWORTHINESS The latest regulatory attempt would likely dampen the scale and profitability of tech majors` credit businesses. That area is a cash cow, as the companies levy high service fees on banks in exchange for access to millions of customers using propriety data. Via its super-app Alipay, Ant collects the data of more than 1 billion people, many of whom are young and internet-savvy users without credit cards or sufficient credit records with banks, as well as 80 million merchants, according to the company`s prospectus and analysts. Ant runs Sesame Credit, one of China`s biggest private credit-rating platforms, with proprietary algorithms and methodology that score people and small businesses based on their use of Ant-linked services. The firm offers limited borrower information to about 100 banks, and takes the so-called "technology service fees" - a 30%-40% cut, on average, of the interest on loans it facilitates, analysts estimated. Ant`s consumer lending balance stood at 1.7 trillion yuan ($263 billion) as of the end of June, accounting for 21% of all short-term consumer loans issued by Chinese deposit-taking financial institutions, according to its IPO prospectus and PBOC data. Compared with Ant, rivals Tencent and JD.com run relatively smaller consumer-credit business. Tencent`s private lender WeBank has operated micro-loans unit Weilidai since 2015, which made over 460 million loan drawdowns worth a total of more than 3.7 trillion yuan as of the end of 2019, according to WeBank`s 2019 annual report. JD.com`s fintech arm, JD Digits, operates two platforms - Baitiao and Jintiao - which had a combined 70 million annual active users and took in a total of 4.4 billion yuan in technology service fees during the first half of 2020. Jintiao facilitated consumer loans worth only 261 billion yuan in the same period of last year, as per JD Digits` prospectus.

Chinese regulators to push tech giants to share consumer credit data

Some 75 major tech players are backing a French initiative committing them to make a "fair tax contribution" in countries where they operate.

French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled the "Tech For Good" initiative at the Elysee Palace on Monday in a move designed to draw up the ground rules for ensuring the internet is a borderless "free, open and safe space".

Tech big-hitters such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Snapchat, and Huawei have also signed the initiative.&nbsp;Assorted tech 'unicorns', start-ups and NGOs have also joined.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/britain-bans-installation-of-new-huawei-5g-equipment-from-september-2021-346456" hreflang="en">Britain bans installation of new Huawei 5G equipment from September 2021</a>

Two big names yet to sign on are Amazon and Apple, but French presidential sources said both have expressed a "desire" to join.

The initiative comes with France having last week pledged to enforce a new digital levy for online technology giants, breaking a truce with Washington over a long-running tax fight that could prompt a round of punitive US tariffs on French goods.

France suspended collection of the tax, which will hit companies like Facebook and Amazon, early this year while negotiations were underway at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on an overhaul of international tax rules.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-notices-sent-out-to-big-tech-companies-345491/amp/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The finance ministry has long said it would collect the tax in December as planned if the talks proved unfruitful by then, which is what happened when the nearly 140 countries involved agreed last month to keep negotiating until mid-2021.

"Companies subject to the tax have received their notice to pay the 2020 installment," a ministry official said.

France last year applied a 3 per cent&nbsp;levy on revenue from digital services earned in France by companies with revenues of more than 25 million euros there and 750 million euros worldwide.

Facebook's stance "is to ensure compliance with all tax laws in the jurisdictions where we operate", it said, adding it had received its tax bill from the French authorities.

Amazon has received a reminder from the French authorities to pay the tax and will comply, according to a person familiar with the matter at the online retailer.

Paris has said it will withdraw the tax as soon as an OECD deal is reached to update the rules on cross-border taxation for the age of online commerce, where big internet companies can book profits in low-tax countries regardless of where their customers are.

The talks stalled as the Trump administration became reluctant to sign on to a multilateral agreement, officials have said.

"We will levy this digital taxation mid-December as we always explained to the US&nbsp;administration," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told a Bloomberg event on Monday.

"Our goal remains to have an OECD agreement by the first months of 2021," he said.

Dan Neidle, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, was skeptical US&nbsp;President-elect Joe Biden would agree to such a deal.

"I'm not sure why Biden would agree to something which enables US&nbsp;corporations to pay more tax in Europe and has not many benefits to the US," said Neidle.

Some 75 major tech players are backing a French initiative committing them to make a "fair tax contribution" in countries where they operate. French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled the "Tech For Good" initiative at the Elysee Palace on Monday in a move designed to draw up the ground rules for ensuring the internet is a borderless "free, open and safe space".

Some 75 major tech players are backing a French initiative committing them to make a "fair tax contribution" in countries where they operate. French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled the "Tech For Good" initiative at the Elysee Palace on Monday in a move designed to draw up the ground rules for ensuring the internet is a borderless "free, open and safe space". Tech big-hitters such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Snapchat, and Huawei have also signed the initiative. Assorted tech 'unicorns', start-ups and NGOs have also joined. Also read: Britain bans installation of new Huawei 5G equipment from September 2021 Two big names yet to sign on are Amazon and Apple, but French presidential sources said both have expressed a "desire" to join. The initiative comes with France having last week pledged to enforce a new digital levy for online technology giants, breaking a truce with Washington over a long-running tax fight that could prompt a round of punitive US tariffs on French goods. France suspended collection of the tax, which will hit companies like Facebook and Amazon, early this year while negotiations were underway at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on an overhaul of international tax rules. The finance ministry has long said it would collect the tax in December as planned if the talks proved unfruitful by then, which is what happened when the nearly 140 countries involved agreed last month to keep negotiating until mid-2021. "Companies subject to the tax have received their notice to pay the 2020 installment," a ministry official said. France last year applied a 3 per cent levy on revenue from digital services earned in France by companies with revenues of more than 25 million euros there and 750 million euros worldwide. Facebook's stance "is to ensure compliance with all tax laws in the jurisdictions where we operate", it said, adding it had received its tax bill from the French authorities. Amazon has received a reminder from the French authorities to pay the tax and will comply, according to a person familiar with the matter at the online retailer. Paris has said it will withdraw the tax as soon as an OECD deal is reached to update the rules on cross-border taxation for the age of online commerce, where big internet companies can book profits in low-tax countries regardless of where their customers are. The talks stalled as the Trump administration became reluctant to sign on to a multilateral agreement, officials have said. "We will levy this digital taxation mid-December as we always explained to the US administration," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told a Bloomberg event on Monday. "Our goal remains to have an OECD agreement by the first months of 2021," he said. Dan Neidle, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, was skeptical US President-elect Joe Biden would agree to such a deal. "I'm not sure why Biden would agree to something which enables US corporations to pay more tax in Europe and has not many benefits to the US," said Neidle.

Fair tax contribution: 75 major tech players sign the French initiative

France`s finance ministry has sent out notices to big tech companies liable for its digital service tax to pay the levy as planned in December, the ministry said on Wednesday.

France suspended collection of the tax, which will hit companies like Facebook and Amazon, early this year while negotiations were underway at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on an overhaul of international tax rules.

The finance ministry has long said it would collect the tax in December as planned if the talks proved unfruitful by then, which is what happened when the nearly 140 countries involved agreed last month to keep negotiating until mid 2021.

"Companies subject to the tax have received their notice to pay the 2020 instalment," a ministry official said.

France last year applied a 3% levy on revenue from digital services earned in France by companies with revenues of more than 25 million euros there and 750 million euros worldwide.

Facebook`s stance "is to ensure compliance with all tax laws in the jurisdictions where we operate", it said, adding it had received its tax bill from the French authorities.

Amazon has received a reminder from the French authorities to pay the tax, and will comply, according to a person familiar with the matter at the online retailer.

Paris has said it will withdraw the tax as soon as an OECD deal is reached to update the rules on cross-border taxation for the age of online commerce, where big internet companies can book profits in low-tax countries regardless of where their customers are.

The talks stalled as the Trump administration became reluctant to sign on to a multilateral agreement, officials have said. 
"We will levy this digital taxation mid December as we always explained to the U.S. administration," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told a Bloomberg event on Monday.

"Our goal remains to have an OECD agreement by the first months of 2021," he said. 
Dan Neidle, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, was sceptical U.S. President-elect Joe Biden would agree to such a deal.

"I`m not sure why Biden would agree to something which enables U.S. corporations to pay more tax in Europe and has not many benefits to the U.S.," said Neidle.

France`s finance ministry has sent out notices to big tech companies liable for its digital service tax to pay the levy as planned in December, the ministry said on Wednesday.

France`s finance ministry has sent out notices to big tech companies liable for its digital service tax to pay the levy as planned in December, the ministry said on Wednesday. France suspended collection of the tax, which will hit companies like Facebook and Amazon, early this year while negotiations were underway at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on an overhaul of international tax rules. The finance ministry has long said it would collect the tax in December as planned if the talks proved unfruitful by then, which is what happened when the nearly 140 countries involved agreed last month to keep negotiating until mid 2021. "Companies subject to the tax have received their notice to pay the 2020 instalment," a ministry official said. France last year applied a 3% levy on revenue from digital services earned in France by companies with revenues of more than 25 million euros there and 750 million euros worldwide. Facebook`s stance "is to ensure compliance with all tax laws in the jurisdictions where we operate", it said, adding it had received its tax bill from the French authorities. Amazon has received a reminder from the French authorities to pay the tax, and will comply, according to a person familiar with the matter at the online retailer. Paris has said it will withdraw the tax as soon as an OECD deal is reached to update the rules on cross-border taxation for the age of online commerce, where big internet companies can book profits in low-tax countries regardless of where their customers are. The talks stalled as the Trump administration became reluctant to sign on to a multilateral agreement, officials have said. "We will levy this digital taxation mid December as we always explained to the U.S. administration," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told a Bloomberg event on Monday. "Our goal remains to have an OECD agreement by the first months of 2021," he said. Dan Neidle, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, was sceptical U.S. President-elect Joe Biden would agree to such a deal. "I`m not sure why Biden would agree to something which enables U.S. corporations to pay more tax in Europe and has not many benefits to the U.S.," said Neidle.

France orders tech giants to pay digital tax

CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, and Google clashed with U.S. senators over online content regulation. Can private companies be trusted with regulating social and political discourse, or is it time to rein in big tech? WION's Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Big tech CEOs grilled by US Senators

A U.S. Senate hearing to reform an internet law and hold tech companies accountable for how they moderate content quickly turned into a political scuffle as lawmakers not only went after the companies but also attacked each other.

US Senate tech hearing becomes political showdown

Australia uncovered a draft law on July 31 to force Google and Facebook to pay news media for their content in a "world-leading" initiative sure to prompt a confrontation with the US digital giants. Watch report.

Your Story: Australia brings law forcing tech giants to pay for news

Four most powerful men in the tech world will answer pointed questions from the US lawmakers in a crucial anti-trust hearing. Watch report.

Big Tech CEO's divided on China technology heft | US Congress | World News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The chief executives of four of the world's largest tech companies will argue in a congressional hearing on antitrust on Wednesday that they face intense competition from each other and from other rivals -- painting them as US success stories in a fiercely competitive world.

The unprecedented hearing will feature chief executives Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google and its parent firm Alphabet. The CEOs will testify remotely at the hearing, which comes less than 100 days before the US election.

The four will testify to a panel of lawmakers investigating how their business practices and data gathering have hurt smaller rivals as they seek to retain their dominance, or expand.

The testimony from Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook, which was released Tuesday, portrays four chief executives who are looking over their shoulders at competitors who could render them obsolete.

Pichai argues that search -- which Google dominates by most metrics -- was broader than just typing a query into Google, and says he remains concerned about being relevant as people turn to Twitter, Pinterest or other websites for information.

He also highlights how Alphabet is helping America solidify its position as the global leader of budding technologies such artificial intelligence and self-driving cars.

In his remarks, Bezos paints online giant Amazon as an American "success" story, while accepting a need for scrutiny.

Hesays Amazon occupies a small share of the overall retail market and competes with retailers like Walmart, which is twice its size. He also says the coronavirus pandemic boosted e-commerce businesses across the spectrum and not just Amazon.

Zuckerberg argues that Facebook competes against other companies appearing at the hearing and against others globally. He also defends Facebook's acquisitions by saying the social media platform helped companies like WhatsApp and Instagram grow. Both are owned by Facebook.

He says the internet giant would not have succeeded without US laws fostering competition, but that the rules of the internet now need updating.

Apple's Tim Cook says the company "does not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business. That is not just true for iPhone, it is true for any product category."

He says scrutiny is "reasonable and appropriate" but that Apple will make "no concession on the facts." Apple does not have a dominant position in any market, and the iPhone faces fierce competition, according to Cook's prepared remarks.

The showdown in the House of Representatives comes amid rising concerns over Big Tech dominance, which has become even more pronounced during the coronavirus pandemic.

Questions at the hearing are expected to veer into issues ranging beyond whether the technology titans are abusing their power in marketplaces.

Current US antitrust laws make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being large or dominant without also showing they cause harm to consumers or abuse their market power.

The tech company chiefs are expected to stress how they benefit consumers, particularly during the pandemic, and face competition -- particularly from China.

The antitrust debate is being muddled by a rising "techlash" over a range of issues from privacy to economic inequality to political bias.

Social media giants face attacks for allegedly using their dominance to stifle conservative views -- a claim made by President Donald Trump.

Facebook has also been accused of failing to curb hateful content promoting violence, including from Trump.

(with inputs from agencies)

The chief executives of four of the world's largest tech companies will argue in a congressional hearing on antitrust on Wednesday that they face intense competition from each other and from other rivals -- painting them as US success stories in a fiercely competitive world.

The chief executives of four of the world's largest tech companies will argue in a congressional hearing on antitrust on Wednesday that they face intense competition from each other and from other rivals -- painting them as US success stories in a fiercely competitive world. The unprecedented hearing will feature chief executives Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google and its parent firm Alphabet. The CEOs will testify remotely at the hearing, which comes less than 100 days before the US election. The four will testify to a panel of lawmakers investigating how their business practices and data gathering have hurt smaller rivals as they seek to retain their dominance, or expand. The testimony from Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook, which was released Tuesday, portrays four chief executives who are looking over their shoulders at competitors who could render them obsolete. Pichai argues that search -- which Google dominates by most metrics -- was broader than just typing a query into Google, and says he remains concerned about being relevant as people turn to Twitter, Pinterest or other websites for information. He also highlights how Alphabet is helping America solidify its position as the global leader of budding technologies such artificial intelligence and self-driving cars. In his remarks, Bezos paints online giant Amazon as an American "success" story, while accepting a need for scrutiny. Hesays Amazon occupies a small share of the overall retail market and competes with retailers like Walmart, which is twice its size. He also says the coronavirus pandemic boosted e-commerce businesses across the spectrum and not just Amazon. Zuckerberg argues that Facebook competes against other companies appearing at the hearing and against others globally. He also defends Facebook's acquisitions by saying the social media platform helped companies like WhatsApp and Instagram grow. Both are owned by Facebook. He says the internet giant would not have succeeded without US laws fostering competition, but that the rules of the internet now need updating. Apple's Tim Cook says the company "does not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business. That is not just true for iPhone, it is true for any product category." He says scrutiny is "reasonable and appropriate" but that Apple will make "no concession on the facts." Apple does not have a dominant position in any market, and the iPhone faces fierce competition, according to Cook's prepared remarks. The showdown in the House of Representatives comes amid rising concerns over Big Tech dominance, which has become even more pronounced during the coronavirus pandemic. Questions at the hearing are expected to veer into issues ranging beyond whether the technology titans are abusing their power in marketplaces. Current US antitrust laws make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being large or dominant without also showing they cause harm to consumers or abuse their market power. The tech company chiefs are expected to stress how they benefit consumers, particularly during the pandemic, and face competition -- particularly from China. The antitrust debate is being muddled by a rising "techlash" over a range of issues from privacy to economic inequality to political bias. Social media giants face attacks for allegedly using their dominance to stifle conservative views -- a claim made by President Donald Trump. Facebook has also been accused of failing to curb hateful content promoting violence, including from Trump. (with inputs from agencies)

Tech giants to defend their companies as US success stories in antitrust hearing

WION Fineprint: US tech giants gird for tough hearing, Antitrust hearing in US

China has unveiled new powers to censor Hong Kong's internet and access user data using its feared national security law. Tech giants Google, Facebook, and Twitter have suspended processing government requests for user data in Hong Kong due to China’s new national security law.

WION Dispatch: Push back against Security Law | Tech giants resist sharing users

All tech giants including Google, Amazon, Uber, etc. & some other multinational companies as well which asked their employees to work from home amid the spread of 'pandemic' COVID-19.

Tech giants makes 'work from home' mandatory for their employees amid COVID-19 outbreak

France's competition authority on Friday fined Google 150 million euros for anti-competitive behaviour and for having unclear advertising on the Google Ads page. #Google #France #WION

Google fined by France over power misuse during advertisements' treatment

Tech companies led by Facebook on Monday joined world leaders in ramping up an industry body to weed out extremist content online, giving it a permanent staff.

Facebook announced the steps at the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/time-for-talks-is-over-world-needs-to-act-now-pm-modi-at-un-climate-change-summit-251563">United Nations</a>, where French President Emmanuel Macron and New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern chaired a meeting on extremist risks on the internet.

Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and YouTube in 2017 formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, a vaguely conceived alliance tasked with tackling the most dangerous material on social media.

But tech companies came under renewed criticism after a white supremacist in March killed worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

He live-streamed the bloodbath and posted a manifesto online that was full of his racist conspiracy theories.

In pics: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/who-said-what-at-united-nations-climate-summit-251604">Who said what at United Nations climate summit</a>

"The extraordinary virality of the attacker's video online illustrated the need to do even more," Facebook said in a statement.

"We believe these next steps are best executed within an industry-led framework with deep input from both civil society and governments," it said.

Facebook said that the forum set up in 2017 would now be considered an independent body and enjoy a dedicated staff under an executive director, who was not immediately named.

While the industry will lead the forum's operating board, non-governmental groups will head an advisory board.

The governments of the United States, France, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Japan will also play an advisory role, along with UN and European Union experts.

The forum will still amount to a voluntary effort by tech companies to police themselves, with Facebook saying that they are trying to do better to identify extremist content.

Facebook said it had already reached a 2019 goal of contributing 200,000 unique digital fingerprints of "known terrorist content," making it easier for all tech companies to quickly identify and act on postings by suspicious individuals.

Tech companies led by Facebook on Monday joined world leaders in ramping up an industry body to weed out extremist content online, giving it a permanent staff. Facebook announced the steps at the United Nations, where French President Emmanuel Macron and New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern chaired a meeting on extremist risks on the internet.

Tech companies led by Facebook on Monday joined world leaders in ramping up an industry body to weed out extremist content online, giving it a permanent staff. Facebook announced the steps at the United Nations, where French President Emmanuel Macron and New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern chaired a meeting on extremist risks on the internet. Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and YouTube in 2017 formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, a vaguely conceived alliance tasked with tackling the most dangerous material on social media. But tech companies came under renewed criticism after a white supremacist in March killed worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. He live-streamed the bloodbath and posted a manifesto online that was full of his racist conspiracy theories. In pics: Who said what at United Nations climate summit "The extraordinary virality of the attacker's video online illustrated the need to do even more," Facebook said in a statement. "We believe these next steps are best executed within an industry-led framework with deep input from both civil society and governments," it said. Facebook said that the forum set up in 2017 would now be considered an independent body and enjoy a dedicated staff under an executive director, who was not immediately named. While the industry will lead the forum's operating board, non-governmental groups will head an advisory board. The governments of the United States, France, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Japan will also play an advisory role, along with UN and European Union experts. The forum will still amount to a voluntary effort by tech companies to police themselves, with Facebook saying that they are trying to do better to identify extremist content. Facebook said it had already reached a 2019 goal of contributing 200,000 unique digital fingerprints of "known terrorist content," making it easier for all tech companies to quickly identify and act on postings by suspicious individuals.

Tech giants beef up body to fight extremist content

tech-giants

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