Freedom of Speech is declared driving force for Takeover
Twitter Inc. announced that it has agreed to be acquired by an entity that is wholly owned by Elon Musk. The news comes after it was widely leaked that negotiations were underway over the weekend and that a deal was imminent.
Going forward the company will be privately held and current stockholders will be compensated at $54.20 for each share of common stock that they own as of completion of the deal. This represents a 38% premium over the closing price on April 1st when Musk’s 9% stake was announced.
The board voted unanimously to the proposal and, though subject to the approval of Twitter’s shareholders, and applicable regulatory approvals the agreement is expected to go through in 2022.
What will follow is unknown, but speculation is rampant
Since the announcement on April 1st that Elon Musk had purchased approximately 9% of Twitter and this Saga began, there has been a busier than usual frenzy of speculation regarding the possibility that has now come to pass.
On the most superficial level, there was an odd kind of measured jubilation on the political Right, with speculation that Musk might re-instate Trump and others who have been permanently banned (although Trump himself indicated that he would decline if invited back) and a sense of horror on the Left – with an implied mistrust of the world’s richest human, connecting this situation to ongoing debates over wealth taxes and economic inequality overall.
On a deeper track are those closer to the situation – such as Jack Dorsey, who expressed support and openly criticized the current board and public structure in elucidating tweets, such as the one below.
it’s consistently been the dysfunction of the company
Looking back at some of the harmony and love shared over bitcoin and other major topics an alliance, or at least a consulting status for @Jack could be amazing in terms of what could come of this – a private Twitter with Musk at the helm, in terms of a new direction for social media and all online business and how they evolve going forward.
While it may seem presumptuous to think it won’t be a disaster, there are deeper issues that would indicate that a lot more thought might have gone into this than a superficial look reveals.
I have zero interest in making money. I have every interest in fixing it. I also have zero interest in cryptocurrencies.
Elon Musk has proved, and explained to anyone that will listen, that his motives and goals for any business endeavor are in a new category of entrepreneur, and his success, often against incredible odds, are a testament to the power of this mindset.
With Tesla, he took on nothing less than the most powerful, entrenched (and arguably corrupt) special interest group in history, the fossil fuel industry, and somehow, due perhaps as much to timing as to any particular strategy or plan, prevailed.
That this takeover could mark the beginning of real change in “Web2” and social media, regarding of the risk of a private individual excepting near absolute control, it is a welcome change, based on the reality that the status quo, at Twitter and basically all the so-called internet giants could not be any worse.
Let’s hope that the public and very visible lead up to this deal will be followed in the near future by a continuation of that openness and that changes and plans will be announced as they happen, which would be entertaining at the least, and exhilarating at best.
There’s a lot more to unpack in this, not just in the reactions and opinions that will surely flood now that the next step is upon us. but in a fruitful and valuable deeper look into the real motivations and potential of this new deal.
For that, please stay tuned, and for now, please let me know what you think about Twitter’s decision and new owner.
“Despite half of U.S. and U.K. adults getting their news from social media, social media companies have not taken the steps necessary to fight industry-backed deception,” reads the report.
Weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified disinformation as a key driver of the planetary crisis, three advocacy groups published a report Wednesday ranking social media companies on their efforts to ensure users can get accurate data about the climate on their platforms—and found that major companies like Twitter and Facebook are failing to combat misinformation.
The report, titled In the Dark: How Social Media Companies’ Climate Disinformation Problem is Hidden from the Public and released by Friends of the Earth (FOE), Greenpeace, and online activist network Avaaz, detailed whether the companies have met 27 different benchmarks to stop the spread of anti-science misinformation and ensure transparency about how inaccurate data is analyzed.
“Despite half of U.S. and U.K. adults getting their news from social media, social media companies have not taken the steps necessary to fight industry-backed deception,” reads the report. “In fact, they continue to allow these climate lies to pollute users’ feeds.
⚠️NEW RESEARCH: Fossil fuel industry-backed climate disinformation pollutes our social media feeds and fans the flames of the #ClimateCrisis. This is why tech companies must take responsibility and stop leaving the public in the dark! https://t.co/7h0rI2jAKWpic.twitter.com/rYEtNETJrY
The groups assessed five major social media platforms—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and TikTok—and found that the two best-performing companies, Pinterest and YouTube, scored 14 out of the 27 possible points.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Pinterest has won praise from groups including FOE for establishing “clearly defined guidelines against false or misleading climate change information, including conspiracy theories, across content and ads.”
“One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for fact-based deliberation, discussion, and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data.”
The company also garnered points in Wednesday’s report for being the only major social media platform to make clear the average time or views it allows for a piece of scientifically inaccurate content before it will take action to combat the misinformation and including “omission or cherry-picking” of data in its definition of mis- or disinformation.
Pinterest and YouTube were the only companies that won points for consulting with climate scientists to develop a climate mis- and disinformation policy.
The top-performing companies, however, joined the other firms in failing to articulate exactly how their misinformation policy is enforced and to detail how climate misinformation is prioritized for fact-checking.
“Social media companies are largely leaving the public in the dark about their efforts to combat the problem,” the report reads. “There is a gross lack of transparency, as these companies conceal much of the data about the prevalence of digital climate dis/misinformation and any internal measures taken to address its spread.”
Twitter was the worst-performing company, meeting only five of the 27 criteria.
“Twitter is not clear about how content is verified as dis/misinformation, nor explicit about engaging with climate experts to review dis/misinformation policies or flagged content,” reads the report. “Twitter’s total lack of reference to climate dis/misinformation, both in their policies and throughout their enforcement reports, earned them no points in either category.”
TikTok scored seven points, while Facebook garnered nine.
The report, using criteria developed by the Climate Disinformation Coalition, was released three weeks after NPRreported that inaccurate information about renewable energy sources has been disseminated widely in Facebook groups, and the spread has been linked to slowing progress on or shutting down local projects.
In rural Ohio, posts in two anti-wind power Facebook groups spread misinformation about wind turbines causing birth defects in horses, failing to reduce carbon emissions, and causing so-called “wind turbine syndrome” from low-frequency sounds—a supposed ailment that is not backed by scientific evidence. The posts increased “perceptions of human health and public safety risks related to wind” power, according to a study published last October in the journal Energy Research & Social Science.
As those false perceptions spread through the local community, NPRreported, the Ohio Power Siting Board rejected a wind farm proposal “citing geological concerns and the local opposition.”
Misinformation on social media “can really slow down the clean energy transition, and that has just as dire life and death consequences, not just in terms of climate change, but also in terms of air pollution, which overwhelmingly hits communities of color,” University of California, Santa Barbara professor Leah Stokes told NPR.
As the IPCC reported in its February report, “rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent.”
Wednesday’s report called on all social media companies to:
Establish, disclose, and enforce policies to reduce climate change dis- and misinformation;
Release in full the company’s current labeling, fact-checking, policy review, and algorithmic ranking systems related to climate change disinformation policies;
Disclose weekly reports on the scale and prevalence of climate change dis- and misinformation on the platform and mitigation efforts taken internally; and
Adopt privacy and data protection policies to protect individuals and communities who may be climate dis/misinformation targets.
“One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for fact-based deliberation, discussion, and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data,” reads the report.
“We see a clear boundary between freedom of speech and freedom of reach,” it continues, “and believe that transparency on climate dis/misinformation and accountability for the actors who spread it is a precondition for a robust and constructive debate on climate change and the response to the climate crisis.”
The new law “will put an end to some of the most harmful practices of Big Tech and narrow the power imbalance between people and online platforms.”
Digital and consumer rights advocates on Friday hailed a landmark European Union law aimed at curbing Big Tech’s monopolistic behavior.
“This is a big moment for consumers and businesses who have suffered from Big Tech’s harmful practices.”
Negotiators from the European Parliament and European Council agreed late Thursday on the language of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which aims to prevent major tech companies from anti-competitive practices by threatening large fines or possible breakup.
Ursula Pachl, deputy director-general at the European Consumer Organization (BEUC), an umbrella advocacy group, said in a statement that “this is a big moment for consumers and businesses who have suffered from Big Tech’s harmful practices.”
“This legislation will rebalance digital markets, increase consumer choice, and put an end to many of the worst practices that Big Tech has engaged in over the years,” she added. “It is a landmark law for the E.U.’s digital transformation.”
The European Union just struck an important deal on the Digital Markets Act, recognizing that only a just and interoperable market can ensure fair competition and more choice for users. #DMAhttps://t.co/lGcTDstagj
Cédric O, the French minister of state with responsibility for digital, said in a statement that “the European Union has had to impose record fines over the past 10 years for certain harmful business practices by very large digital players. The DMA will directly ban these practices and create a fairer and more competitive economic space for new players and European businesses.”
“These rules are key to stimulating and unlocking digital markets, enhancing consumer choice, enabling better value sharing in the digital economy, and boosting innovation,” he added.
Andreas Schwab, a member of the European Parliament from Germany, said that “the Digital Markets Act puts an end to the ever-increasing dominance of Big Tech companies. From now on, Big Tech companies must show that they also allow for fair competition on the internet. The new rules will help enforce that basic principle.”
BEUC’s Pachl offered examples of the new law’s benefits:
Google must stop promoting its own local, travel, or job services over those of competitors in Google Search results, while Apple will be unable to force users to use its payment service for app purchases. Consumers will also be able to collectively enforce their rights if a company breaks the rules in the Digital Markets Act.
Companies are also barred from pre-installing certain software and reusing certain private data collected “during a service for the purposes of another service.”
Today’s historical agreement on the #DMA taught us two things, first, that the EU is up to the challenge to reign big tech and, secondly, that Europe’s civil society can make a difference in making the regulatory framework more user-focused.
The DMA applies to companies deemed both “platforms” and “gatekeepers”—those with market capitalization greater than €75 billion ($82.4 billion), 45 million or more monthly end-users, and at least 10,000 E.U. business users. Companies that violate the law can be fined up to 10% of their total annual worldwide turnover, with repeat offenders subject to a doubling of the penalty.
“The DMA is a major step towards limiting the tremendous market power that today’s gatekeeper tech firms have.”
Diego Naranjo, head of policy at the advocacy group European Digital Rights (EDRi), said in a statement that “the DMA will put an end to some of the most harmful practices of Big Tech and narrow the power imbalance between people and online platforms. If correctly implemented, the new agreement will empower individuals to choose more freely the type of online experience and society we want to build in the digital era.”
To ensure effective implementation, BEUC’s Pachl called on E.U. member states to “now also provide the [European] Commission with the necessary enforcement resources to step in the moment there is foul play.”
EDRi senior policy adviser Jan Penfrat said that while “the DMA is a major step towards limiting the tremendous market power that today’s gatekeeper tech firms have,” policymakers “must now make sure that the new obligations not to reuse personal data and the prohibition of using sensitive data for surveillance advertising are respected and properly enforced by the European Commission.”
“Only then will the change be felt by people who depend on digital services every day,” he added.
Originally published on Common Dreams by BRETT WILKINS and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
While still CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos testified in Congress by video conference on July 29, 2020. Now, there are at least Five members of a congressional committeealleging that he and other executives may have lied under oath andmisled lawmakers.
In a press release by the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee the lawmakers state that they are giving Amazon a “Final Chance to Correct the Record Following a Series of Misleading Testimony and Statements”.
CurrentAmazon CEO Andy Jassy, who, in July, succeeded Bezos is being asked to respond to the discrepancies, including information found by The Markup published in a recent article
Leaked documents reveal the e-commerce company’s private-brands team in India “secretly exploited internal data” to copy products from other sellers and rigged search results.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday renewed her call to break up Amazon after internal documents obtained by Reutersrevealed that the e-commerce giant engaged in anti-competitive behavior in India that it has long denied, including in testimonies from company leaders to Congress.
“These documents show what we feared about Amazon’s monopoly power—that the company is willing and able to rig its platform to benefit its bottom line while stiffing small businesses and entrepreneurs,” tweeted Warren (D-Mass.) “This is one of the many reasons we need to break it up.”
Warren is a vocal advocate of breaking up tech giants including but not limited to Amazon. The company faces investigations regarding alleged anti-competitive behavior in the United States as well as Europe and India. The investigative report may ramp up such probes.
Aditya Karla and Steve Stecklow report that “thousands of pages of internal Amazon documents examined by Reuters—including emails, strategy papers, and business plans—show the company ran a systematic campaign of creating knockoffs and manipulating search results to boost its own product lines in India, one of the company’s largest growth markets.”
“The documents reveal how Amazon’s private-brands team in India secretly exploited internal data from Amazon.in to copy products sold by other companies, and then offered them on its platform,” according to the reporters. “The employees also stoked sales of Amazon private-brand products by rigging Amazon’s search results.”
In India, Amazon stoked sales of private-brand products by manipulating its search results so that the products would appear ‘in the first 2 or three … search results’ when customers were shopping on https://t.co/OA0tY09fhk, an internal document shows https://t.co/1FMsAX0pza
In sworn testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2020, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos explained that the e-commerce giant prohibits its employees from using the data on individual sellers to help its private-label business. And, in 2019, another Amazon executive testified that the company does not use such data to create its own private-label products or alter its search results to favor them.
But the internal documents seen by Reuters show for the first time that, at least in India, manipulating search results to favor Amazon’s own products, as well as copying other sellers’ goods, were part of a formal, clandestine strategy at Amazon—and that high-level executives were told about it. The documents show that two executives reviewed the India strategy—senior vice presidents Diego Piacentini, who has since left the company, and Russell Grandinetti, who currently runs Amazon’s international consumer business.
While neither Piacentini nor Grandinetti responded to Reuters‘ requests for comment, Amazon provided a written response that did not address the reporters’ questions.
“As Reuters hasn’t shared the documents or their provenance with us, we are unable to confirm the veracity or otherwise of the information and claims as stated,” Amazon said. “We believe these claims are factually incorrect and unsubstantiated.”
“We display search results based on relevance to the customer’s search query, irrespective of whether such products have private brands offered by sellers or not,” the company said, adding that it “strictly prohibits the use or sharing of nonpublic, seller-specific data for the benefit of any seller, including sellers of private brands.”
Warren was not alone in calling for the breakup of Amazon following the report.
“This is not shocking. But it is appalling,” the American Economic Liberties Project said in a series of tweets. “Independent businesses have sounded the alarm for years—providing evidence that Amazon stole their intellectual property.”
4/ Months later, in April 2020, @WSJ revealed that Amazon had been stealing from independent businesses to create competing products.https://t.co/ZgsNmtExIJ
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) October 13, 2021
“We said back in 2020 that a perjury referral was in order—and it still is,” the group added, highlighting testimony from Bezos and Nate Sutton, Amazon’s associate general counsel. “But Amazon will remain an anti-business behemoth, flagrantly breaking the law and daring policymakers to stop them.”
Highlighting a report from a trio of its experts, Economic Liberties added that “it’s time to break Amazon up.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JESSICA CORBETT and republished under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
We do have socialism in this country—but it’s not Democrats’ policies. The real socialism is corporate welfare.
You may have heard Republicans in Congress rail about how the Democrats’ agenda is chock-full of scary “socialist” policies.
We do have socialism in this country—but it’s not Democrats’ policies. The real socialism is corporate welfare.
Thousands of big American corporations rake in billions each year in government subsidies, bailouts, and tax loopholes—all funded on the taxpayer dime, and all contributing to higher stock prices for the richest 1 percent who own half of the stock market, as well as CEOs and other top executives who are paid largely in shares of stock.
Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, defense contractors, and big banks are the biggest beneficiaries of corporate welfare.
How? Follow the money. These corporations and their trade groups spend hundreds of millions each year on lobbying and campaign contributions. Their influence-peddling pays off. The return on these political investments is huge. It’s institutionalized bribery.
An even more insidious example is corporations that don’t pay their workers a living wage. As a result, their workers have to rely on programs like Medicaid, public housing, food stamps and other safety nets. Which means you and I and other taxpayers indirectly subsidize these corporations, allowing them to enjoy even higher profits and share prices for their wealthy investors and executives.
Not only does corporate welfare take money away from us as taxpayers. It also harms smaller businesses that have a harder time competing with big businesses that get these subsidies. Everyone loses except those at the top.
It’s more socialism for the rich, harsh capitalism for the rest.
It should be ended.
I’m as sensitive as anyone to the sufferings of Afghans now, but I’ve had it with the sanctimony of journalists and pundits who haven’t thought about Afghanistan for 20 years—many of whom urged we get out—but who are now filling the August news hole with overwrought stories about Biden’s botched exit and Taliban atrocities.
Yes, the exit could have been better planned and executed. Yes, it’s all horribly sad. But can we get a grip? The sudden all-consuming focus on Afghanistan is distracting us from hugely important stuff that’s coming to a head at home:
(1) Republican politicians and right-wing media worsening the surging Delta variant of COVID by fighting masks and vaccinations, as cities and school systems struggle to decide what to do;
(2) wildfires and floods consuming much of America, as House Democrats absurdly threaten to oppose Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget blueprint containing important measures to slow climate change;
(3) Texas on the verge of passing the nation’s most anti-democracy voting restrictions, adding to voter suppression measures in 24 other states, at the same time the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Act”—which would remedy these horrendous laws—languish in the Senate because Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema refuse to do anything about the filibuster.
Enough sanctimony over Afghanistan. Enough about Biden’s falling approval ratings. We’ve had enough wall-to-wall coverage of the Olympics and then Andrew Cuomo and now the airport in Kabul. Can we please focus on the biggest things that need and deserve our attention right now? The window of opportunity to do anything about them will close sooner than we expect.
If we don’t take action now on COVID and the critical importance of vaccinations and masks, on climate change and Biden’s $3.5 trillion package, and on voter suppression and the necessity of the For the People and the John Lewis Voting Rights Acts, we may never.
There’s a storm brewing and tech mega-monsters like Amazon, Google & Facebook know it
Practically since the day that Lina M. Kahn was appointed chair of the FTC, big tech giants have shown that they are worried. Both Amazon and Facebook filed suits asking that she recuse herself almost immediately.
Khan’s famous 2017 article; “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox“, published in the Yale Law Journal was both the obvious initial catalyst to her becoming chair of the FTC and also Amazon being unhappy that she would be at the helm of the FTC while antitrust actions are being brought against them.
The idea of removing her would have obvious appeal for those that fear her dedication to a new antitrust stance at the FTC, one that no longer allows digital behemoths to skate, monopolize and grow unchecked. But there is likely little chance that they can get her off their metaphorical backs that easily.
As per the Guardian: “Khan does not have any conflicts of interest under federal ethics laws, which typically apply to financial investments or employment history, and the requests [for her recusal] are not likely to go far.”
The Markup found industry fingerprints on at least five bills around the country—weak laws, experts say, that are designed to preempt stronger protections
By: Todd Feathers
Concerned about growing momentum behind efforts to regulate the commercial use of personal data, Big Tech has begun seeding watered-down “privacy” legislation in states with the goal of preempting greater protections, experts say.
The swift passage in March of a consumer data privacy law in Virginia, which Protocol reported was originally authored by Amazon with input from Microsoft, is emblematic of an industry-driven, lobbying-fueled approach taking hold across the country. The Markup reviewed existing and proposed legislation, committee testimony, and lobbying records in more than 20 states and identified 14 states with privacy bills built upon the same industry-backed framework as Virginia’s, or with weaker models. The bills are backed by a who’s who of Big Tech–funded interest groups and are being shepherded through statehouses by waves of company lobbyists.
Meanwhile, the small handful of bills that have not adhered to two key industry demands—that companies can’t be sued for violations and consumers would have to opt out of rather than into tracking—have quickly died in committee or been rewritten.
Experts say Big Tech’s push to pass friendly state privacy bills ramped up after California enacted sweeping privacy bills in 2018 and 2020—and that the ultimate goal is to prompt federal legislation that would potentially override California’s privacy protections.
“The effort to push through weaker bills is to demonstrate to businesses and to Congress that there are weaker options,” said Ashkan Soltani, a former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission who helped author the California legislation. “Nobody saw Virginia coming. That was very much an industry-led effort by Microsoft and Amazon. At some point, if multiple states go the way of Virginia, you might not even get companies to honor California’s [rules].”
California’s laws, portions of which don’t go into effect until 2023, create what is known as a “global opt out.” Rather than every website requiring users to go through separate opt-out processes, residents can use internet browsers and extensions that automatically notify every website that a user wishes to opt out of the sale of their personal data or use of it for targeted advertising—and companies must comply. The laws also allow consumers to sue companies for violations of the laws’ security requirements and created the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s rules.
“Setting up these weak foundations is really damaging and really puts us in a worse direction on privacy in the U.S.,” said Hayley Tsukayama, a legislative activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Every time that one of these bills passes, Virginia being a great example, people are saying ‘This is the model you should be looking at, not California.’ ”
Amazon did not respond to requests for comment, and Microsoft declined to answer specific questions on the record.
Industry groups, however, were not shy about their support for the Virginia law and copycats around the country.
The Virginia law is a “ business and consumer friendly approach” that other states considering privacy legislation should align with, The Internet Association, an industry group that represents Big Tech, wrote in a statement to The Markup.
Big Tech’s Fingerprints Are All Over State Privacy Fights
In testimony before lawmakers, tech lobbyists have criticized the state-by-state approach of making privacy legislation and said they would prefer a federal law. Tech companies offered similar statements to The Markup.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda declined to answer questions but emailed The Markup a statement: “As we make privacy and security advancements to protect consumers, we’ll continue to advocate for sensible data regulations around the world, including strong, comprehensive federal privacy legislation in the U.S.”
But at the same time, the tech and ad industries have taken a hands-on approach to shape state legislation. Mostly, industry has advocated for two provisions. The first is an opt-out approach to the sale of personal data or using it for targeted advertising, which means that tracking is on by default unless the customer finds a way to opt out of it. Consumer advocates prefer privacy to be the default setting, with users given the freedom to opt in to certain uses of their data. The second industry desire is preventing a private right of action, which would allow consumers to sue for violations of the laws.
The industry claims such privacy protections are too extreme.
“That may be a bonanza for the trial bar, but it will not be good for business,” said Dan Jaffe, group executive vice president for government relations for the Association of National Advertisers, which has lobbied heavily in states and helped write model federal legislation. TechNet, another Big Tech industry group that has been deeply engaged in lobbying state lawmakers, said that “enormous litigation costs for good faith mistakes could be fatal to businesses of all sizes.”
Through lobbying records, recordings of public testimony, and interviews with lawmakers, The Markup found direct links between industry lobbying efforts and the proliferation of these tech-friendly provisions in Connecticut, Florida, Oklahoma, and Washington. And in Texas, industry pressure has shaped an even weaker bill.
Additionally, The Markup found a handful of states—particularly North Dakota and Oklahoma—in which tech lobbyists have stepped in to thwart efforts to enact stricter laws.
Connecticut
The path of Connecticut’s bill is illustrative of how these battles have played out. There, state Senate majority leader Bob Duff introduced a privacy bill in 2020 that contained a private right of action. During the bill’s public hearing last February, Duff said he looked out on a room “literally filled with every single lobbyist I’ve ever known in Hartford, hired by companies to defeat the bill.”
The legislation failed. Duff introduced a new version of it in 2021, and it too died in committee following testimony from interest groups funded by Big Tech, including the Internet Association and The Software Alliance.
According to Duff and Sen. James Maroney, who co-chairs the Joint Committee on General Law, those groups are now pushing a separate privacy bill, written using the Virginia law as a template. Duff said lawmakers “had a Zoom one day with a lot of big tech companies” to go over the bill’s language.
“Our legislative commissioner took the Virginia language and applied Connecticut terminology,” Maroney said.
That industry-backed bill passed through committee unanimously on March 23.
“It’s an uphill battle because you’re fighting a lot of forces on many fronts,” Duff said. “They’re well funded, they’re well heeled, and they just hire a lot of lobbyists to defeat legislation for the simple reason that there’s a lot of money in online data.”
Google has spent $100,000 lobbying in Connecticut since 2019, when Duff first introduced a consumer data privacy bill. Apple and Microsoft have each spent $124,000, Amazon has spent $116,000, and Facebook has spent $155,000, according to the state’s lobbyist reporting database.
Microsoft declined to answer questions and instead emailed The Markup links to the testimony its company officials gave in Virginia and Washington.
The Virginia model “is a thoughtful approach to modernize United States privacy law, something which has become a very urgent need,” Ryan Harkins, the company’s senior director of public policy, said during one hearing.
Google declined to respond to The Markup’s questions about their lobbying. Apple and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, Rep. Collin Walke, a Democrat, and Rep. Josh West, the Republican majority leader, co-sponsored a bill that would have banned businesses from selling consumers’ personal data unless the consumers specifically opted in and gave consumers the right to sue for violations. Walke told The Markup that the bipartisan team found themselves up against an army of lobbyists from companies including Facebook, Amazon, and leading the effort, AT&T.
AT&T lobbyists persuaded House leadership to delay the bill’s scheduled March 2 hearing, Walke said. “For the whole next 24-hour period, lobbyists were pulling members off the house floor and whipping them.”
Walke said to try to get the bill through the Senate, he agreed to meetings with Amazon, internet service providers, and local tech companies, eventually adopting a “Virginia-esque” bill. But certain companies remained resistant—Walke declined to specify which ones—and the bill died without receiving a hearing.
AT&T did not respond to questions about its actions in Oklahoma or other states where it has fought privacy legislation. Walke said he plans to reintroduce the modified version of the bill again next session.
Texas
In Texas, Rep. Giovanni Capriglione first introduced a privacy bill in 2019. He told The Markup he was swiftly confronted by lobbyists from Amazon, Facebook, Google, and industry groups representing tech companies. The state then created a committee to study data privacy, which was populated in large part by industry representatives.
Facebook declined to answer questions on the record for this story.
Capriglione introduced another privacy bill in 2021, but given “Texas’s conservative nature,” he said, and the previous pushback, it doesn’t include any opt-in or opt-out requirement or a private right of action. But he has still received pushback from industry over issues like how clear and understandable website privacy policies have to be.
“The ones that were most interested were primarily the big tech companies,” he said. “I received significant opposition to making any changes” to the status quo.
Washington
The privacy bill furthest along of all pending bills is in Washington, the home state of Microsoft and Amazon. The Washington Privacy Act was first introduced in 2019 and was the inspiration for Virginia’s law. Microsoft, Amazon, and more recently Google, have all testified in favor of the bill. It passed the state Senate 48–1 in March.
A House committee considering the bill has proposed an amendment that would create a private right of action, but it is unclear whether that will survive the rest of the legislative process.
Other States
Other states—Illinois, Kentucky, Alabama, Alaska, and Colorado—have Virgina-like bills under consideration. State representative Michelle Mussman, the sponsor of a privacy bill in Illinois, and state representative Lisa Willner, the sponsor of a bill in Kentucky, told The Markup that they had not consulted with industry or made privacy legislation their priority during 2021, but when working with legislative staff to author the bills they eventually put forward, they looked to other states for inspiration. The framework they settled on was significantly similar to Virginia’s on key points, according to The Markup’s analysis.
The sponsors of bills in Alabama, Alaska, and Colorado did not respond to interview requests, and public hearing testimony or lobbying records in those states were not yet available.
The Campaign Against Tougher Bills
In North Dakota, lawmakers in January introduced a consumer data privacy bill that a coalition of advertising organizations called “the most restrictive privacy law in the United States.” It would have included an opt-in framework, a private right of action, and broad definitions of the kind of data and practices subject to the law.
It failed 75–19 in the House shortly after a public hearing in which only AT&T, data broker RELX, and industry groups like The Internet Association, TechNet, and the State Privacy and Security Coalition showed up to testify—all in opposition. And while the big tech companies didn’t directly testify on the bill, lobbying records suggest they exerted influence in other ways.
The 2020–2021 lobbyist filing period in North Dakota, which coincided with the legislature’s study and hearing on the bill, marked the first time Amazon has registered a lobbyist in the state since 2018 and the first time Apple and Google have registered lobbyists since the state began publishing lobbying disclosures in 2016, according to state lobbying records.
A Mississippi bill containing a private right of action met a similar fate. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Angela Turner-Ford, did not respond to an interview request.
While in Florida, a bill that was originally modeled after California’s laws has been the subject of intense industry lobbying both in public and behind the scenes. On April 6, a Florida Senate committee voted to remove the private right of action, leaving a bill substantially similar to Virginia’s. State senator Jennifer Bradley, the sponsor of Florida’s bill, did not respond to The Markup’s request for comment.
Several bills that include opt-in frameworks, private rights of action, and other provisions that experts say make for strong consumer protection legislation are beginning to make their way through statehouses in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. It remains to be seen whether those bills’ current protections can survive the influence of an industry keen to set the precedent for expected debate over a federal privacy law.
If the model that passed in Virginia and is moving forward in other states continues to win out, it will “really hamstring federal lawmakers’ ability to do anything stronger, which is really concerning considering how weak [that model] is,” said Jennifer Lee, the technology and liberty project manager for the ACLU of Washington. “I think it really will entrench the status quo in allowing companies to operate under the guise of privacy protections that aren’t actually that protective.”
The opinions expressed “pro” or “con” regarding big tech abuses of power are both overlooking far more serious issues that lie beneath
After years of public and insider opinion gradually shifting from a state of wonder, awe and hero worship of tech giants and their founders and CEOs, toward a more skeptical stance, and now, finally, government action begins; the fundamental issues that lie beneath are still barely mentioned, let alone widely understood.
In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.
While past antitrust cases were complex and difficult to understand fully, particularly for the general public, from the little known A & P case in the 30s and 40s to Standard Oil and Ma Bell / AT&T, in each case there were complex issues to address.
However, one simple thing tied them together that could be understood by virtually anyone: businesses that have a win-at-all-costs approach to business tactics and then achieve monopoly power almost always use that power to fulfill ambitions based on self-perpetuating greed at the expense of society as a whole.
Many, from all walks of life, particularly in the U.S., worship the ethos of “winner take all” and even if they are at the lowest levels of the economic ladder still cheer on the most ruthless and morally bankrupt “winners” as heroes, using a bizarre logic, that somehow they might one day see themselves in the winners circle.
This perspective is similar to societies where dictators, such as Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or emperors are worshiped fervently by the very people that are most exploited and downtrodden under their regimes. Perhaps this is a hardwired genetic human trait, impossible to alter.
In the case of tech giants of the internet era, beginning with Microsoft and its antitrust case, a similar dynamic is no less present, and, no different from the steps that dictators take to encourage obedience and worship from their subjects. In this case it’s massive amounts of money and power used for required self-serving PR and the brutal economic repression of any dissenting voices.
Try to find a book on Amazon’s Jeff Bezos that is not a hero-worship nonsense-title purporting to offer you a way to become a “business genius” like him. You will find a few exceptions, of course, these purporting to offer “hard-hitting” investigative journalism and a sober look at the “real facts”.
These will be watered down, meekly subservient, weak and impotent tombs barely scratching the surface of any negative perspectives on the real problems Amazon and its founder have created, not only for millions of people around the world but for society as a whole.
Even among those that are the most incisive and have a real desire to “dig-deep” and reach the roots of the real problems, there is often still the a priori assumption that somehow, the 26 year evolution of business models that could “succeed” in internet and software based business are to be measured on a scale that presumes that the business models themselves are basically valid, simply because they were able to survive and create massive, nearly immeasurable, wealth for a tiny handful of individuals. .
Taking into account the pervasive pro-big-business bias, it is a miracle in a sense, that the public opinion has shifted so far, to the point where antitrust actions can be seen as valid, by enough of the public at large, that these giant monopolistic tech companies are called into question at all.
The miracle, if we call it that, is only a reflection of just how purely evil and out of control the situation has become, and how many people have been harmed, and in how many different ways this harm has occurred.
From teen suicides to thousands of bankrupt and struggling small businesses to privacy rights trampled in the dirt, the list of abuses and harm, if it were ever brought to light, could fill a thousand page treatise and would read like a recounting of the atrocities of war.
And then there’s the fact that the war is fought with computer code and over territory that has no physical address
Much as collateralized debt obligations and other arcane “synthetic” financial products nearly collapsed the entire world economy in 2008, partially due to the intentional complexity, which served only to hide the stupidity, complex computer algorithms are now at the heart of an ever larger and even more dangerous economic debacle that continues to unfold.
And much of the lack of any pushback against this is the simple ability to hide behind the complex computer methods and concepts that have allowed tech giants to build an even bigger and more dangerous kind of monopolistic behavior than even the so called “Robber Barons” of the Gilded Age.
Even those, in government or in the press, who are pushing back are doing so with, apparently, little understanding of the real dangers that are buried in the code and in the tricks used by very sophisticated, technologically educated people in control of these trillion dollar behemoths.
For example, Facebook is already claiming that the government should not be able to question the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp because they already approved the mergers at the time they happened.
In his excellent article published on medium.com , Will Oremus points out:
But I looked up the FTC’s public statements following those reviews, and it states explicitly that the matter should not be considered permanently settled.
“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred,” the FTC’s closing letter said. It added, “The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Also in that article, titled; ‘Competition Is for Losers’: How Peter Thiel Helped Facebook Embrace Monopoly the idea succinctly embodied in the title which refers to a Wall Street Journal piece on Thiel’s book “Zero to One” which he describes as having been “embraced as a business bible in Silicon Valley and beyond” and quotes from including this characterization:
(Thiel) made the case for monopoly as the ultimate goal of capitalism. Indeed, “monopoly is the condition of every successful business,” he asserted. With it, you’re free to set your own prices, think long-term, innovate, and pursue goals other than mere survival. Without it, you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.
And this provides the context within which the current struggle unfolds. To understand the real dangers of the total domination of the internet, which has become the vital lifeline of our economy and social existence, by a handful of trillion dollar companies, that not only embrace limitless greed and dictatorial status within their industry, but see it as the divine right that they hold, and believe they are entitled to aspire toward without interference.
And in another context such behavior would be known as immoral, destructive to society and social justice, and if the laws are adequate to apply; criminal.
And there’s the rub. The antitrust statutes, possibly already inadequate to take on this new kind of robber, have also been weakened since the 80s. Add to that how the pre-existing biases are heavily slanted toward minimizing any accountability for such behavior and is follows that any real reform must rise from the public at large.
The birth of the internet was anything but immaculate
The tragi-comic farce of the story, when seen through the lens of internet history, is how Facebook, Google and Amazon all followed the same absurd arc.
From “underdogs” with massive losses and no income to ridiculously “valuable” “FANG” members championed from the rooftops as heroic winners of darwinian battles to build out the internet for profit. And, finally, after decades of unfettered expansion, being seen more and more for what they are: profit-seeking scams using each a different method to restrain competition and destroy the most valuable asset humanity has ever built: the internet itself.
The complexity of the scams is still the most useful cloak for them to hide behind, each with a different insanely complicated way to force what is a public asset, the internet, into a tool for private greed, at the expense of any real innovation. And the victims are not the competitor firms that they might have destroyed (or bought), but rather the entire population of any territory that they control, with North America being the center of the empire.
The question asked for example of Google or Facebook should not be, “do they provide any services from the public can benefit, in exchange for their obscenely privileged monopoly control over “search” and “social networking”, respectively. The question should be “are they the best possible solution, from the perspective of what is in the best interest of society, for those extremely important functions in our new digital world.
It is not enough to say that “consumers have chosen” each as their go-to tool. If any company or group of companies could do a better job of enabling humanity to communicate, interact and become educated via the internet, why should those other solutions be buried forever under a mountain of greed and self-interest?
This is the infinitely elusive point: No different than Bernie Madoff, the damage they have wrought, by destroying what could have been, will only be understood once they are either gone or forced to cease what they depend on for domination, which would lead to their ultimate demise over time, just as Peter Thiel himself stated:
Without (a monoply), you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.
Or as Jeff Bezos explained, in what his become his predatory raison d’être: The competition is always one-click-away. This makes every other online seller, in his view, an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs, no matter how small, no matter how weak.
In this sick paranoid view of the world it is truly an all or nothing struggle for survival, with death of all competitors, literally and figuratively, the only acceptable outcome.
With this mindset at the heart of these companies, and with the government and most of the press taking a milk-toast submissive approach (in contrast) the struggle to rein in these monstrous, utterly corrupt empires, will take years if not decades.
However, 2020 will always be seen as the beginning of the end the the gruesome mistake of history that these companies represent.
Companies that achieved dominance and monopoly control of a system meant for public benefit, through the most destructive methods they were able to devise, and then redoubled efforts infinitely to expand using those same destructive and corrupt methods.
In the end there is only one power large enough to intervene, as already at their current size, and while, like a virus, they double in power and economic domination almost annually, and that is the power of the billions that use their platforms everyday. Change will arise when they have damaged themselves by damaging the very societies they prey on, and once damaged, those societies will have no choice but to shed them like the murderous parasites that they are.
That will not happen anytime soon. The general view of these companies, is still very mild and forgiving. And it’s important to note that each case is different and this article applies only to Facebook, Google and Amazon.
Just as most have either forgiven or forgotten the massive bailouts that criminal companies were gifted during the 2008 financial crisis, the perception that these massive tech companies are at worst mildly anti-competitive and at best harmless and just practicing good, successful capitalism, will not be changed overnight.
It can only come after much more pain at the hands of this corrupt system that currently controls the internet, and therefore, our digital lives.
Search Battle Lynxotic Predicted is about to Breakout Big time
In a year that has already offered AppleOne, 5G, and perpetual AirTag teases, Apple Inc might have yet another major project hidden up its sleeve. According to a report from the Financial Times, the tech company has recently partaken in research and development indicative of creating a new original search engine.
For years, Google has been the default search engine on Apple devices. This is part of an ongoing deal between the two companies where Google pays Apple a pretty penny to foreground their services. Now, however, Google is facing an antitrust suit from the Department of Justice. This case claims that Google has a monopoly over search and directly sites its relationship with Apple as evidence.
If the DOJ manages to win against Google, it could be the end of its search engine arriving pre-encrypted in all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Thus, an in-house Apple search engine comes at an opportune time. Not only will it provide Apple with a new default search platform, but it will also muster some competition against Google— one of the things that the antitrust case desperately calls for.
Any Engine at All by Apple is Earth-shattering to the Status Quo of Big Tech
Nothing is set in concrete about this speculative Apple search engine yet. All we know for sure is that the latest version of iOS 14 shows signs of increased search technology. Under the upgraded operating system, iPhone users can type in questions directly on their devices’ home screens and arrive at Internet results without any middleman. This has also led to an uptick in Apple’s spidering tools, which comb and datafy the web for a smoother search experience.
These changes in iOS 14 are subtle, but given the context, they could be laying the seeds for something much larger. Tellingly, former Google head of search John Geannandrea also oversees these recent Apple advancements. Geannandrea joined Apple three years ago, and while his main focus at the company has been Siri thus far, he obviously has the expertise and experience for helming a Google-like project.
Some believe that Siri is the base of Apple’s increased search interests. Perhaps the new technologies are simply working to refine the voice assistant rather than setting up a wholly alternative Google competitor. At the same time, though, with the proper expansion, Siri could very well evolve into a worthy Google rival, especially if it becomes the one-stop search engine on all Apple devices.For now, users will just have to wait while events unfold. Experts say that the antitrust case against Google will go on for years, and if Apple is indeed developing its own search engine alternative, it will likely take just as long.
New Reports call for laws to rein in giant monopolies
Amid a zany week of political theater and election drama, the federal government has actually managed to make quiet, nonpartisan progress on an important issue. On Tuesday, October 7th, Democratic members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust finally released a long-awaited report concerning the dominant technological companies in America and their legally dubious corporate power.
The report comes at the end of a sixteen-month investigation into the tech giants, arriving to the conclusion that America’s four biggest tech companies—Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple— all partake in anti-competitive practices that could be reprehensible by law.
Essentially, with the exception of Apple, these four conglomerates have created near-monopolies in their respective fields. Amazon controls 40% of e-commerce in America, and endorses business models that squander the competition and abuse third-party sellers through data mining. Apple has argued that they do not have a monopoly stake in phones, Android (google) and Samsung, have a larger worldwide base, and in other areas Apple has an even less dominant position. Only in dollar denominated success do they hold the absolute top spot.
Google has an even larger monopoly on Internet searches, also utilizing data to bind users to their content and prioritize their services over all other websites.
Facebook, meanwhile, is a hegemonic vacuum for social media outlets, endorsing a “copy, acquire, and then kill” technique according to the report. Essentially, rather than compete with other platforms, Facebook sucks them into inescapable, self-serving positions.
Apple is not in quite as much hot water as the other three companies. The report mainly accuses Apple of binding its users to the Apple Store, which creates an extra, sometimes expensive, hurdle for App developers to get over if they want their product widely available. The report accuses Google of doing something similar with Android, saying that the software forces people to use Google on their devices.
Of course, all of these companies have denied any illegality in their actions— each citing the free market and defending their business practices as entirely fair when responding to the report.
Generally in gridlock and inept, this is one area where Government must act decisively
However, Congress does not seem to agree. In light of the recent report, many Democrats are in favor of rewriting the U.S. Antitrust Laws to better protect a fair, competitive economy. Traditionally, the Antitrust Laws keep businesses in check on behalf of consumers, but they have not been touched in decades, and capitalism has developed immensely since then.
The amount of power that these three companies have garnered demonstrates that the laws now need to consider affairs between businesses as well, lest a handful of power-hungry entities override the market.
Some Republicans, however, have pushed back against the idea of rewriting the Antitrust Laws. Notably, Representative Kelly Armstrong from North Dakota did not sign the committee’s report on Tuesday. While he agrees that something nefarious is at hand with these tech companies, his remedy focuses on greater oversight from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, upping the enforcement rather than adjusting the laws itself.
Even if certain politicians disagree on how to address the issue, the nonpartisan support for cracking down on big-tech in America is nevertheless a milestone, and it comes at a crucial time. While thousands of Americans are facing economic strife due to the COVID-19 pandemic, billionaires (especially tech moguls) are seeing their stocks skyrocket.
According to a financial study covered in USA Today, billionaires now hold more of the world’s wealth than ever before— $10.8 trillion. Tech billionaires in particular hold $1.8 trillion of that, a whopping 42.5% increase from just a year and a half ago.
The bulk of American Antitrust Laws were written at the turn of the twentieth century. Since then, the state of the world has changed. The state of the economy has changed. And perhaps most immensely, the state of technology has changed. Algorithmic dictatorships are growing almost as quickly as class divides in America. So perhaps it is time for the law to change as well.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
A building chorus of dissenting voices from well heeled and carefully researched corporate ad buyers
Zuckerberg faces the music (collage / Lynxotic)
The Facebook ad boycott has been going on for several weeks now, as more and more companies are abstaining from promoting content on the social media website until it makes greater amends to eliminate hate speech on its platform. At first, many expected that the boycott would not be enough to spark real change. After all, only about a hundred companies are engaged in it, and Facebook hosts over 8 million advertisers. However, now that a few key players have joined the movement, Facebook is facing palpable financial and PR consequences, heralding an indirect response.
Companies started to boycott ads on Facebook earlier this month, as civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, Sleeping Giants, Color Of Change, Free Press and Common Sense criticized the site for providing a platform for racist and bigoted content. These groups were particularly critical of Facebook failing to censor President Trump‘s inflammatory post regarding the Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s death. In the post, Trump stated, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” endorsing a hateful rhetoric riddled with dark precedents.
Facebook was defensive of allowing Trump’s post go unedited at first, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg playing the free-speech card that has kept Facebook relatively unaccountable in the past for the mounds of unsavory content plastered on the site.
Now, however, Facebook is waking up to a significant hit to the wallet.
Major ad contributors have joined the boycott against Facebook including Verizon, Coca-Cola, Unilever, and dozens upon dozens more, with most making a statement that they will abstain from advertising on Facebook through the summer or until the site changes its methods. It is part of a movement titled “Stop Hate For Profit,” targeted at companies that make money off of bigotry.
Money matters, apparently, particularly big, big sums
As mentioned above, the companies who have joined the movement are but a drop in Facebook’s ocean of advertisers. Nevertheless, amidst the boycott and all of the negative PR Facebook has acquired as a result, the site’s stock price has dropped significantly. On Friday, June 26th, its stock went down more than 8%, representing a loss $56 billion in market value for the company. Even for a company like Facebook, that is not exactly chump-change.
Non-coincidentally, later that same day, Zuckerberg released a statement outlining Facebook’s plans to be more proactive about censoring content on the website. In a thirteen minute video and accompanying post, the CEO explained that going forward, Facebook will be making more efforts to ensure that all users feel safe on the website. This includes prohibiting ads that target or demean certain demographics, making it more apparent when content is or is not deemed “newsworthy,” and increasing security for content related to the upcoming election, flagging hoax videos and removing the spread of misinformation.
A long list of convictions and potential crimes is beginning to mount
The larger question exists as to why now, after facebook’s lax and predatory behaviors are well known and documented, suddenly these major advertisers have woken to the urgency of change? BLM and antitrust, along with a long list of highly critical investigative reports from major news over a period of years, might just be building into a tsunami of anti-facebook sentiment too big to ignore.
It was Facebook’s complacency with spreading misinformation during the 2016 Election—as well as the Cambridge Analytica privacy breeches— that instigated the website’s fall from grace nearly four years ago. Since then, Facebook among other big-tech labels have been the subject of greater criticism for their role in politics, culture, and public discourse.
While Zuckerberg’s latest video feels more substantial than most of his responses to criticism. It attempts to off some possible real solutions to the problems rather than just hollow suggestions or distractive rebranding techniques. Still, many are not satisfied, hoping that Facebook will focus more on removing all hateful content rather than simply flagging it, or adjusting its corporate allegiances so they stop selling data to or providing a platform for institutions that aim to disenfranchise people.
As the boycott continues, perhaps Facebook’s response will grow more progressive, but Zuck and his company continue to toe that delicate line between upholding freedom of speech and quelling unambiguously offensive content. Likewise, it will be interesting to see what the boycotters do in the coming months. Facebook is a crucial advertising platform for most of these corporations. By the end of the summer, will they start using the site again, or will they continue to hold out until greater change comes about?
To endorse the former would seem like a sellout, like the entire boycott was but a disingenuous gesture. However, to carry on with the boycott indefinitely begs the question of how much Facebook needs to adjust itself before returning to the public’s (as well as other business’) good graces.
Ultimately, the question is whether real change is finally coming; for us all to have a choice of more than a single, solitary option for our social media network (facebook), search engine (google) or eCommerce destination (amazon).
Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google and respective President and CEO of its parent company Alphabet Inc, have officially announced plans to step down from their high-ranking management roles in the tech world. Page and Brin created the Google search engine in 1998 when they were PhD students at Stanford University. Since then, the two have expanded the company into a multi-purpose technological empire.
Now, twenty-one years later, the forty-six year old entrepreneurs are resigning from their leading positions at Google. However, given the stress that Google is under, they are retiring at a suspiciously convenient time. And even though they are sacrificing their titles, they are simultaneously managing to maintain stakes in the Google brand.
Taking over for Page and Brin is Pichai Sundararajan—better known as Sundar Pichai, the former number-two at Google who has practically been acting as the face of the company for the past few years. As the two founders have found themselves more invested in Google’s experimental sectors recently—Brin focusing on GoogleX’s driverless cars and Google Glasses while Page has shifted his attention towards flying automobiles—most of the Google’s more widely-used properties have fallen under Pichai’s supervision.
Pichai has been with Google since 2004. He is responsible for convincing the company to start its own browser in 2008, which lead to the immensely successful Google Chrome. In 2013, he took over the Android Division, better integrating Google properties into the line of smartphones without sacrificing their affordability. He also spearheaded the development of Chrome OS, the operating system that fuels Google’s popular Chromebook laptops.
Indeed, Pichai is an obvious choice to replace Page and Brin as CEO of Google and Alphabet. The man has practically been running the company’s mainstream innovations for the past ten years, while its founders take the backseat to play out their billion dollar tech fantasies.
Then again, Page and Brin are far from exiled from the Google community. Although they are no longer acting leaders, they will still keep their fourteen percent stakes in the company’s finances. As majority stockholders, they will also retain influence over Alphabet’s decisions. Thus, Page and Brin’s step down from power is hardly a step down at all, but rather an excuse to hold onto control while dodging personal accountability in trying times.
And trying times these are indeed for Google. Within the past year especially, Congress and other authorities have been cracking down on tech conglomerates such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and of course, Google. Like its fellow cyber juggernauts, Alphabet has been criticized for having a monopoly on data. Not only are users starting to think that Google wields too much power, but they also fear what it is doing with such power, as the worldwide company becomes oddly elusive when questioned about its privacy standards, information distribution, and business ethics.
Even Marc Zuckerberg had the slightest integrity to come before Congress and speak for Facebook during the Senate Committee hearing on big tech last year. Page and Brin, however, were nowhere to be found. Despite being requested at the hearing, they left a conspicuously empty seat in Washington DC with Google’s name on it.
Ever since cyber ethics and big tech have become hot topics in the media, the founders of Google have been moving further and further away from the spotlight. Their resignation from Alphabet as a whole signifies their ultimate fall into the shadows, where no one can accuse them of immorality or illegality on behalf of the company. The burden will now fall on Pichai.
In a way, little has changed. Pichai has more or less been answering for Page and Brin for a while, handling publicity and leading all of the launches that come from Google. Now, however, he holds the actual crown—even if Page and Brin are keeping the royal treasure. With any luck, though, maybe Pichai will improve Google, not just by creating more innovative software, but by bettering Alphabet’s approach to security, designing tech with human decency in mind, and actually owning up and responding to some of the company’s mistakes as they come.
It’s unlikely and perhaps foolishly optimistic, but it’s a silver lining that users can grasp onto given the (albeit somewhat empty) change in Google’s leadership.
