Tag: Facebook

Categories
Business

Fb, Ford, eBay and extra

Facebook, Ford, eBay and more

The Facebook logo is displayed on a phone screen and keyboard.

Jakub Porzycki | NurPhoto via Getty Images

Check out the companies that are making headlines in mid-day trading.

Ford – The automaker’s shares fell more than 9% Thursday after Ford announced it would lose half of its production in the second quarter due to the global semiconductor shortage. The company exceeded expectations for first quarter sales and earnings.

Facebook – The social network was up 5.3% in midday trading after posting revenue of $ 26.17 billion in the first quarter. This corresponds to an increase of 48% over the previous year, which is due to more expensive ads. Facebook also trimmed its forecast for investments for the year to between $ 19 billion and $ 21 billion.

Uber, Lyft – Shares in hail-fighting companies fell after Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said most gig workers in the US should be considered white-collar workers, Reuters reported. Uber fell 6% and Lyft fell 9%.

Caterpillar – Shares in the global machinery maker fell more than 3% after posting better-than-expected first-quarter sales and earnings. The stock appeared to come under pressure after CEO Jim Umpleby suggested that global supply chain problems, including semiconductor shortages, could make it harder for the heavy equipment maker to meet recovering demand this year.

Qualcomm – Qualcomm shares rose nearly 3% after the chipmaker reported that sales were up 52% ​​on an annualized basis for the three months ended March 28. The company reported adjusted earnings per share of $ 1.90 versus $ 1.67 expected by analysts surveyed by Refinitiv.

Cheesecake Factory – The restaurant chain’s shares rose around 5.5% after adjusted quarterly earnings of 20 cents per share, while analysts expected a loss of 6 cents per share, according to Refinitiv. Sales also exceeded expectations.

Spotify – The streaming company’s share price rose about 1.6% after Pivotal upgraded it to buy from the hold. Spotify cratered 12% on Wednesday after its first-quarter report showed slower-than-expected growth for monthly active users. However, pivot analyst Jeffrey Wlodarczak said the company is poised for strong growth in the years to come.

eBay – The e-commerce company’s shares were down more than 11% after disappointing forecasts for the current quarter. EBay surpassed the income statement for its quarterly results.

Merck & Co. – Pharmaceuticals stock lost more than 5% after Merck’s first quarter results came in below expectations. The company reported adjusted earnings per share of $ 1.40 on revenue of $ 12.08 billion for the quarter. Analysts surveyed by Refinitiv searched for earnings per share of $ 1.63 on revenue of $ 12.66 billion.

DISH Network – Television stock rose 7.3% after Dish beat expectations for the first quarter. According to Refinitiv, the company earned 99 cents per share, 18 cents more than analysts expected. Revenue also exceeded expectations as the decline in TV subscribers slowed.

Comcast – Shares of NBCUniversal and CNBC parent companies rose 3.7% after beating estimates, reporting adjusted quarterly earnings of 76 cents per share, according to Refinitiv. Sales also exceeded expectations.

Generac – The generator manufacturer’s shares fell 3.5% after the company beat the income statement for its quarterly results. Generac reported earnings per share of $ 2.38 on sales of $ 807 million. According to Refinitiv, analysts expect earnings per share of USD 1.87 on sales of USD 729 million.

Bristol-Myers Squibb – The pharmaceutical company’s shares fell 4.5% after missing the high and low end of quarterly results. Bristol-Myers Squibb reported earnings of $ 1.74 per share, compared to its estimate of $ 1.82 per share, according to Refinitiv. Revenue was $ 11.07 billion, below the forecast of $ 11.12 billion.

– with reports from Jesse Pound and Tom Franck of CNBC.

Categories
World News

S&P, Nasdaq 100 futures are larger after Apple & Fb beat estimates

S&P, Nasdaq 100 futures are higher after Apple & Facebook beat estimates

US stock index futures were higher early Thursday morning after major averages posted losses the previous day.

Futures contracts linked to the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 88 points. S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq 100 futures also traded in positive territory.

The strong quarterly results from Apple and Facebook have fueled the future. Sales rose 54% for the quarter, with each product category posting double-digit growth, according to Apple. The company also announced it would increase its dividend by 7% and approved share buybacks of $ 90 billion. Facebook revenue increased 48% due to more expensive ads. Apple shares rose more than 2% in after-hours trading, while Facebook rose 6.15%.

The main averages closed in the red during normal trading. The Dow lost 165 points and lost 0.48%. The S&P 500 hit a record high but failed to sustain those gains and closed 0.08% lower. The Nasdaq Composite was down 0.28%.

The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that it would keep interest rates near zero. The S&P slid from its high after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said during a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee’s decision that there was some signs of froth in the market.

“Interest rates are unchanged for now, and despite the improvement in economic data, the cone talk was off the table at today’s Federal Reserve meeting,” said Bethany Payne, portfolio manager at Janus Henderson.

“As vaccination rates accelerate, employment boosts and expansive fiscal policies continue to support household and corporate incomes, investors are now looking for signs of whether the central bank’s safety net may be pulled out sooner than expected,” she added.

Thursday is the busiest day of the winning season. Around 11% of the S&P 500 is to be updated quarterly. Caterpillar, McDonald’s, Comcast, and Merck are among the names on deck before the market opens. Amazon, Gilead Sciences, Twitter, US Steel and Western Digital will publish quarterly results after the market closes.

According to Refinitiv, as of Wednesday morning, 86% of the S&P 500 components reported were above earnings estimates, with earnings 22.7% above expectations. In terms of sales, 77% of companies exceeded expectations.

The economic data released on Thursday will give investors a glimpse of the progress of the economic recovery. The first jobless claim numbers are released, with economists polled by Dow Jones expecting a pressure of 528,000. Pending home sales are also posted.

“The primary market trend remains positive,” said Keith Lerner, chief marketing strategist at Truist. “We expect a more troubled environment, however, as tensions between better economic growth and better earnings prospects versus the potential for higher taxes and rising interest rates as the economy normalizes,” he added.

Thursday marks the 100th day of President Joe Biden’s tenure. On Wednesday evening, he gave his first address to a joint congressional session where he unveiled his previously popular agenda, which included a $ 2 trillion infrastructure plan and a freshly unveiled $ 1.8 trillion plan for families, Includes children and students.

Become a smarter investor with CNBC Pro.
Get stock picks, analyst calls, exclusive interviews and access to CNBC TV.
Sign in to start a free trial today

Categories
Business

Is an Activist’s Dear Home Information? Fb Alone Decides.

Is an Activist’s Pricey House News? Facebook Alone Decides.

The Post’s editors wrote that Facebook and other social media companies “claim to be” neutral “and that they are not making editorial decisions to ward off cynical regulations or legal responsibilities that jeopardize their profits. But they act as publishers – only very bad ones. “

Updated

April 25, 2021, 5:35 p.m. ET

Of course you need one to know one. The Post, always a mix of strong local news, big gossip and conservative politics, is currently bidding for the title of the worst newspaper in America. It has published a number of scary stories about Covid vaccines, the culmination of which was a headline linking vaccines to herpes, part of a broader effort to expand its digital reach. Great stuff if your looking for traffic in anti-vax telegram groups. The piece about the Black Lives Matter activist that blocked Facebook was pretty weak too. Without evidence, she assumed that her fortune had gone bad and mostly just scoffed at how “the self-described Marxist bought a house for $ 1.4 million last month.”

But then you probably hated a story about someone you didn’t like buying an expensive house. For example, when Lachlan Murdoch, the co-chair of the Post’s parent company, bought the most expensive house in Los Angeles, it received wide and occasionally derisive coverage. Maybe Mr. Murdoch didn’t know he could have the stories deleted from Facebook.

Facebook does not maintain a central register of news articles being deleted for these reasons, although the service also blocked a Daily Mail article about the Black Lives Matter activist’s real estate. And it doesn’t keep track of how many news articles it blocked, though it regularly deletes offensive posts from individuals, including photos of the home of Fox News star Tucker Carlson, a Facebook employee said.

The conflict between Facebook and The Post really showed – and what surprised me – that the platform doesn’t postpone news organizations at all when it comes to judging news. A decision by the Post or the New York Times that someone’s personal assets are current will not affect the company’s opaque enforcement mechanisms. Nor did Facebook’s attorney say that there is a nebulous and reasonable human judgment that the country has found nervous over the past year, and that a black activist’s concern for her own safety was warranted. (The activist did not respond to my request, but mentioned in an Instagram post the coverage of her personal finances “doxxing” and a “tactic of terror”.)

The whole point of the Facebook bureaucracy is to replace human judgment with some kind of strict corporate law. “The policy in this case prioritizes security and privacy, and that enforcement shows how difficult these tradeoffs can be,” said Tucker Bounds, vice president of communications for the company. “To understand if our guidelines are in place, we refer the guidelines to the Oversight Board.”

The board is a promising type of supercourt that has not yet established a meaningful policy. So this rule could change at some point. (Let your stories be erased while you can!)

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket sides with Fb in robocall case

Supreme Court sides with Facebook in robocall case

The Supreme Court turned to its grammar books on Thursday to give Facebook a win. It was about whether the internet giant had violated a three-decade-old federal law that curbs abusive telemarketing practices.

In a unanimous decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court supported a narrow definition of automated dialing systems, which are largely banned under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The 8-0 opinion and an assent written by Justice Samuel Alito contained a lively debate about the benefits of using language textbooks to understand the importance of legal texts.

The case was brought by Noah Duguid, who said he had received login notifications from Facebook on his phone since 2014 and was unable to stop them even though he had never created an account. For about 10 months, Duguid said, he tried unsuccessfully to break free of the messages, text the company and send an email. Duguid said the news continued even after being told “Facebook texts are now off”.

Duguid attempted a class action lawsuit for himself and others exposed to the same alleged abuse. However, Facebook asked a federal district court to dismiss Duguid’s lawsuit, referring to Congress’ definition of automated dialers as systems that “store or produce phone numbers to be called using a random or sequence number generator.”

Given that definition, Facebook argued, Duguid would have to prove that Facebook used a number generator to store or produce its phone number. He couldn’t do that, the company argued, for the simple reason that Facebook didn’t use a number generator at all.

According to Facebook, if the court had accepted Duguid’s argument, it could make using a smartphone to make a normal phone call illegal – given the ability to automatically store and call numbers.

However, Duguid argued that “using a random or sequence number generator” only applies to the production of its number, not the way the company stored it. And he argued that Facebook clearly stored his number.

The district court ruled Facebook and dismissed Duguid’s lawsuit, but the U.S. 9th appeals court overturned that decision in 2019, allowing Duguid’s case to move forward. The appeals court cited a case that it had ruled a year earlier, Marks v Crunch San Diego.

The TCPA defines an automatic telephone dialing system as “a device having the capacity to – (A) store telephone numbers to be stored or called using a random or sequence number generator, and (B) dial such numbers”.

“In Marks, we made it clear that the adverbial phrase ‘using a random or sequence number generator’ only modifies the verb ‘produce’ and not the preceding verb ‘save’,” wrote Judge Mary McKeown.

On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that this was not entirely correct. Citing the so-called “serial qualification canon”, Sotomayor wrote that the most natural reading of the definition would apply the number generator requirement to both the storage and the production of telephone numbers.

“As several leading papers explain,” wrote Sotomayor, “a qualifying sentence separated by a comma from the antecedents is evidence that the qualifier should apply to all antecedents, not just the one immediately preceding it.”

To illustrate this, Sotomayor looked at a teacher who announced that students are “not allowed to do or review homework intended for a class using online homework help websites”.

“It would be strange to read this rule to prohibit students from doing homework with or without online assistance,” Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor cited a number of legal and grammatical heavyweights to support her, including a 2012 book written by the late Judge Antonin Scalia and grammarian Bryan Garner.

“According to conventional grammar rules”[w]If there is a simple, parallel construction that includes all nouns or verbs in a series, “a modifier at the end of the list” usually applies to the entire series, “wrote Sotomayor, citing Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. “

Garner was one of the lawyers for Duguid on the case.

In court records, he and other attorneys argued that the Supreme Court should eschew the serial qualification canon in favor of the “distribution phrasing canon” which would apply the modifier to the verbs most appropriate based on context, or to the “last”. preceding canon, “which would apply the modifier to the verb it immediately follows.

Garner also denied Facebook’s claim that the comma in the definition after the word “named” settled the matter.

“The comma prompts the reader to look further back to see what to do with a number generator, but doesn’t tell the reader how far back,” wrote Garner and the other lawyers, including Sergei Lemberg.

Garner declined to comment on the court’s decision.

Alito, largely in agreement with Sotomayor’s opinion, refused to join her. In his approval, he cited the majority’s “strong confidence” in the serial qualification canon, which in his opinion had “played a prominent role in our cases of legal interpretation”.

After all, wrote Alito, grammar rules are not really rules.

“Even grammar, according to Garner, is usually just an attempt to describe the English language as it is actually used,” wrote Alito, citing another book by the author, “The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage and Punctuation.” “

Alito wrote that he agreed with Sotomayor’s interpretation of the teacher’s comment, who advised her students not to use homework help websites. However, he wrote that understanding was not based on the syntax of the sentence but on the “general understanding that teachers do not want to forbid students from doing homework”.

He noted what would happen if Teacher used the word “destroy” or “burn” instead of “completely”.

“The concept of using ‘online homework help websites’ to do all of these things would be nonsensical and no reader would interpret the phrase to mean that – even if suggested in the canon for series qualifiers”, he added.

Alito suggested empirically testing the strength of the various canons by analyzing text combinations from English-language databases and examining how people use so-called series modifiers in practice. In the vast majority of cases, he suggested, “the point of the matter” would likely reveal a meaning.

In a footnote, Sotomayor wrote that she agreed with Alito that speech cannons are not inflexible rules. But, she wrote, she disagreed with him insofar as he advocated judges who relied primarily on their own linguistic sense when interpreting ambiguous laws.

“Despite the legislature’s best efforts to write in ‘English prose’, there will inevitably be difficult ambiguities in the legal text,” wrote Sotomayor. “Courts should approach these problems of interpretation methodically, using traditional instruments of legal interpretation to confirm their beliefs about the ‘common understanding’ of words.”

The case is Facebook vs. Noah Duguid, nos. 19-511.

Categories
Business

Disinformation Listening to with Fb, Google and Twitter: Stay Updates

Laden des Videoplayers

Folgendes müssen Sie wissen:

Mark Zuckerberg von Facebook, Jack Dorsey von Twitter und Sundar Pichai von Google treten bei einer Anhörung auf darüber, wie sich Desinformation auf ihren Plattformen ausbreitet. Die Anhörung wird von zwei Unterausschüssen des größeren Energie- und Handelsausschusses des Hauses abgehalten, die sich mit Technologiefragen befassen.

VideoMark Zuckerberg von Facebook, Sundar Pichai von Google und Jack Dorsey von Twitter sagen vor dem Kongress aus der Ferne über “Fehlinformationen und Desinformation, die Online-Plattformen plagen” aus.AnerkennungAnerkennung…Poolfoto von Greg NashDie Capitol-Unruhen Anerkennung…Energie- und Handelsausschuss über YouTube

Demokratische Gesetzgeber beschuldigten die Geschäftsführer, Geld verdient zu haben, indem sie zuließen, dass Desinformation online grassierte, was ihre wachsende Frustration über die Verbreitung von Extremismus, Verschwörungstheorien und Unwahrheiten online nach dem Aufstand vom 6. Januar im Kapitol widerspiegelte.

Ihre Kommentare eröffneten die erste Anhörung seit der Amtseinführung von Präsident Biden mit Mark Zuckerberg von Facebook, Sundar Pichai von Google und Jack Dorsey von Twitter. Sie waren ein Signal dafür, dass die Überprüfung der Geschäftspraktiken im Silicon Valley mit den Demokraten im Weißen Haus und der Führung beider Kongresskammern nicht nachlassen und sich möglicherweise sogar intensivieren wird.

Der Gesetzgeber äußerte sich besorgt darüber, dass die Plattformen einen finanziellen Anreiz hatten, die Nutzer zu binden, indem sie ihnen brutale oder spaltende Inhalte zuführten, was die Verbreitung von Fehlinformationen, Verschwörungen und extremen Botschaften anheizte.

„Sie erwecken definitiv den Eindruck, dass Sie nicht glauben, dass Sie diese Fehlinformationen und diesen Extremismus in irgendeiner Weise aktiv fördern, und dem stimme ich überhaupt nicht zu. Sie sind keine passiven Zuschauer “, sagte der Vertreter Frank Pallone, der Demokrat aus New Jersey, der den Vorsitz im Energie- und Handelsausschuss führt. “Du verdienst Geld.”

Der Januar-Aufstand machte das Thema Desinformation für viele Gesetzgeber sehr persönlich. Einige Teilnehmer wurden mit Online-Verschwörungen wie QAnon in Verbindung gebracht, die die Plattformen in den letzten Monaten versucht haben einzudämmen.

Der Vertreter Mike Doyle, ein Demokrat aus Pennsylvania, drängte die Führungskräfte darauf, ob ihre Plattformen für die Verbreitung von Desinformationen im Zusammenhang mit dem Wahlergebnis 2020 verantwortlich seien, was den Aufruhr anheizte.

“Wie ist es möglich, dass Sie nicht zumindest zugeben, dass Facebook eine führende Rolle bei der Rekrutierung, Planung und Durchführung des Angriffs auf das Kapitol gespielt hat?” er fragte Herrn Zuckerberg.

“Ich denke, dass die Verantwortung hier bei den Menschen liegt, die Maßnahmen ergriffen haben, um das Gesetz zu brechen und den Aufstand zu führen”, sagte Zuckerberg und fügte hinzu, dass die Menschen, die die Fehlinformationen verbreiteten, ebenfalls Verantwortung trugen.

“Aber Ihre Plattformen haben das aufgeladen”, sagte Mr. Doyle.

Der Gesetzgeber argumentierte, dass die Plattformen auch Fehlinformationen über die Coronavirus-Pandemie ermöglicht hätten.

Die wachsende Frustration des Gesetzgebers kommt, wenn er überlegt, ob die Geschäftsmodelle der Plattformen strenger reguliert werden sollen. Einige haben vorgeschlagen, ein gesetzliches Schutzschild zu ändern, das Websites vor Rechtsstreitigkeiten über von ihren Benutzern veröffentlichte Inhalte schützt, und argumentiert, dass es den Unternehmen ermöglicht, bei der Überwachung ihrer Produkte fahrlässig davonzukommen.

Der Vertreter Jan Schakowsky, Demokrat von Illinois, sagte am Donnerstag, dass die Führungskräfte wegnehmen sollten, dass “die Selbstregulierung am Ende ihres Weges angelangt ist”.

Vertreter Bob Latta, Republikaner von Ohio, beschuldigte die Plattformen einer Anerkennung…Energie- und Handelsausschuss über YouTube

Republikanische Gesetzgeber kamen in die Anhörung, um über die Unruhen im Capitol am 6. Januar zu dämpfen, aber ihr Animus konzentrierte sich auf die Entscheidungen der Plattformen, rechte Persönlichkeiten, einschließlich des ehemaligen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump, wegen Anstiftung zu Gewalt zu verbieten.

Die Entscheidung, Herrn Trump, viele seiner Mitarbeiter und andere Konservative zu verbieten, sei eine liberale Voreingenommenheit und Zensur.

“Wir alle sind uns der zunehmenden Zensur konservativer Stimmen durch Big Tech und ihres Engagements für die radikale progressive Agenda bewusst”, sagte Bob Latta, der ranghöchste Republikaner des Unterausschusses für Kommunikation und Technologie des Hauses.

Nach den Unruhen im Capitol wurden Mr. Trump und einige seiner Top-Helfer vorübergehend oder auf unbestimmte Zeit auf wichtigen Social-Media-Websites verboten.

Es wird erwartet, dass die Kommentare von Herrn Latta von vielen Republikanern in der Anhörung wiederholt werden. Sie sagen, die Plattformen seien zu Gatekeepern von Informationen geworden, und sie beschuldigen die Unternehmen, konservative Ansichten zu unterdrücken. Die Behauptungen wurden von Wissenschaftlern konsequent widerlegt.

Herr Latta ging auf das gesetzliche Schutzschild ein, das als Section 230 des Communications Decency Act bekannt ist, und ob die großen Technologieunternehmen den behördlichen Schutz verdienen.

“Section 230 bietet Ihnen den Haftungsschutz für Entscheidungen zur Moderation von Inhalten, die nach Treu und Glauben getroffen wurden”, sagte Latta. Aber er sagte, die Unternehmen scheinen ihre Moderationsbefugnisse genutzt zu haben, um Standpunkte zu zensieren, mit denen die Unternehmen nicht einverstanden sind. “Ich finde das sehr besorgniserregend.”

Von den Geschäftsführern von Facebook, Alphabet und Twitter wird erwartet, dass sie auf beiden Seiten des Ganges vor schwierigen Fragen des Gesetzgebers stehen. Demokraten haben sich auf Desinformation konzentriert, insbesondere nach dem Aufstand im Kapitol. Die Republikaner haben die Unternehmen bereits nach ihren Entscheidungen befragt, konservative Persönlichkeiten und Geschichten von ihren Plattformen zu entfernen.

Reporter der New York Times haben viele der Beispiele behandelt, die auftauchen könnten. Hier sind die Fakten, die Sie über sie wissen sollten:

Nachdem sein Sohn 2016 in Israel von einem Mitglied der militanten Gruppe Hamas erstochen worden war, entschied Stuart Force, dass Facebook teilweise für den Tod verantwortlich war, da die Algorithmen, die das soziale Netzwerk antreiben, dazu beitrugen, den Inhalt der Hamas zu verbreiten. Er verklagte zusammen mit Verwandten anderer Terroropfer das Unternehmen und argumentierte, dass seine Algorithmen die Verbrechen unterstützten, indem sie regelmäßig Posten verstärkten, die zu Terroranschlägen ermutigten. Argumente über die Leistungsfähigkeit der Algorithmen haben in Washington nachhallt.

Section 230 des Communications Decency Act hat Facebook, YouTube, Twitter und unzähligen anderen Internetunternehmen zum Gedeihen verholfen. Der Haftungsschutz von Section 230 erstreckt sich jedoch auch auf Randwebsites, die für ihre Hassreden, antisemitischen Inhalte und rassistischen Tropen bekannt sind. Als die Prüfung großer Technologieunternehmen in Washington in Bezug auf eine Vielzahl von Themen, einschließlich des Umgangs mit der Verbreitung von Desinformation oder Hassreden der Polizei, intensiviert wurde, wurde Section 230 erneut in den Fokus gerückt.

Nachdem Facebook den politischen Diskurs rund um den Globus entflammt hat, versucht es, die Temperatur zu senken. Das soziale Netzwerk begann, seinen Algorithmus zu ändern, um den politischen Inhalt in den Newsfeeds der Benutzer zu reduzieren. Facebook gab eine Vorschau auf die Änderung Anfang dieses Jahres, als Mark Zuckerberg, der Geschäftsführer, sagte, das Unternehmen experimentiere mit Möglichkeiten, um spaltende politische Debatten unter den Nutzern einzudämmen. “Eines der wichtigsten Rückmeldungen, die wir derzeit von unserer Community hören, ist, dass die Menschen nicht wollen, dass Politik und Kämpfe ihre Erfahrungen mit unseren Diensten übernehmen”, sagte er.

Als das Wahlkollegium die Wahl von Joseph R. Biden Jr. bestätigte, ließen die Fehlinformationen über Wahlbetrug nach. Aber Händler von Online-Lügen haben Lügen über die Covid-19-Impfstoffe verbreitet. Die Republikanerin Marjorie Taylor Greene, eine Republikanerin aus Georgia, sowie rechtsextreme Websites wie ZeroHedge haben begonnen, falsche Impfstoffberichte zu veröffentlichen, sagten Forscher. Ihre Bemühungen wurden durch ein robustes Netzwerk von Anti-Impf-Aktivisten wie Robert F. Kennedy Jr. auf Plattformen wie Facebook, YouTube und Twitter verstärkt.

Am Ende taten zwei Milliardäre aus Kalifornien das, was Legionen von Politikern, Staatsanwälten und Maklern jahrelang versucht hatten und versäumten: Sie zogen Präsident Trump den Stecker. Journalisten und Historiker werden Jahre damit verbringen, den improvisatorischen Charakter der Verbote auszupacken und zu untersuchen, warum sie angekommen sind, als Herr Trump seine Macht verlor und die Demokraten bereit waren, die Kontrolle über den Kongress und das Weiße Haus zu übernehmen. Die Verbote haben auch eine seit Jahren schwelende Debatte um freie Meinungsäußerung angeheizt.

Geschäftsführer von Google, Apple, Amazon und Facebook sagen im Juli aus. Mark Zuckerberg von Facebook hat sechs Mal auf dem Capitol Hill ausgesagt.Anerkennung…Poolfoto von Mandel Ngan

Im Herbst 2017, als der Kongress Google, Facebook und Twitter aufforderte, über ihre Rolle bei der Einmischung Russlands in die Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016 auszusagen, schickten die Unternehmen ihre Geschäftsführer nicht – wie vom Gesetzgeber gefordert – und riefen stattdessen ihre Anwälte dazu auf Stelle dich dem Feuer.

Während der Anhörungen beschwerten sich die Politiker darüber, dass die General Counsel Fragen dazu beantworteten, ob die Unternehmen dazu beigetragen hätten, den demokratischen Prozess zu untergraben, anstatt “die Top-Leute, die tatsächlich die Entscheidungen treffen”, wie Senator Angus King, ein unabhängiger von Maine, es ausdrückte .

Es war klar, dass Capitol Hill sein Pfund CEO-Fleisch haben wollte und dass es nicht lange funktionieren würde, sich hinter den Anwälten zu verstecken. Diese anfängliche Besorgnis darüber, wie die Häuptlinge des Silicon Valley mit dem Grillen von Gesetzgebern umgehen würden, ist keine Sorge mehr. Nach einer Reihe von virtuellen und persönlichen Anhörungen in den letzten Jahren hatten die Führungskräfte viel Übung.

Seit 2018 hat Sundar Pichai, der Geschäftsführer von Google, drei Mal ausgesagt. Jack Dorsey, der Geschäftsführer von Twitter, hat vier Auftritte absolviert, und Mark Zuckerberg, der Chef von Facebook, hat sechs Mal ausgesagt.

Und wenn die drei Männer am Donnerstag erneut befragt werden, werden sie dies jetzt als erfahrene Veteranen tun, um die bösartigsten Angriffe abzulenken und dann zu ihren sorgfältig geübten Gesprächsthemen umzuleiten.

Im Allgemeinen neigt Herr Pichai dazu, bei den schärfsten Stößen des Gesetzgebers höflich und schnell anderer Meinung zu sein – beispielsweise als Herr Pichai letztes Jahr gefragt wurde, warum Google Inhalte von ehrlichen Unternehmen stiehlt -, aber keine Harfe darauf. Wenn ein Politiker versucht, ihn auf ein bestimmtes Thema festzulegen, stützt er sich häufig auf eine bekannte Verzögerungstaktik: Meine Mitarbeiter werden sich bei Ihnen melden.

Herr Pichai ist kein dynamischer Technologieführer mit Personenkult wie Steve Jobs oder Elon Musk, aber sein zurückhaltendes Auftreten und seine Ernsthaftigkeit eignen sich gut für das Rampenlicht des Kongresses.

Herr Zuckerberg hat sich im Laufe der Zeit auch mit den Anhörungen wohler gefühlt und betont, was das Unternehmen zur Bekämpfung von Fehlinformationen unternimmt. Bei seinem ersten Auftritt im Jahr 2018 war Herr Zuckerberg zerknirscht und versprach, es besser zu machen, wenn er die Benutzerdaten nicht schützt und russische Einmischung in Wahlen verhindert.

Seitdem hat er die Botschaft verbreitet, dass Facebook eine Plattform für immer ist, und dabei sorgfältig die Schritte dargelegt, die das Unternehmen unternimmt, um Desinformation online auszumerzen.

Da die Sitzungen während der Pandemie virtuell verlaufen sind, haben Mr. Dorseys Auftritte, die sich über eine Laptop-Kamera gebeugt haben, im Vergleich zu den schwach beleuchteten neutralen Kulissen für die Google- und Facebook-Chefs einen ganz anderen Zoom-Charakter.

Herr Dorsey neigt dazu, extrem ruhig zu bleiben – fast zenartig -, wenn er mit aggressiven Fragen gedrängt wird, und beschäftigt sich häufig mit technischen Fragen, die selten ein Follow-up verbieten.

VideoCinemagraphAnerkennungAnerkennung…Von Sean Dong

Im heutigen On Tech-Newsletter erklärt Shira Ovide, dass die Debatte in Abschnitt 230 unser Unbehagen über die Macht von Big Tech und unseren Wunsch widerspiegelt, jemanden zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen.

Categories
Business

Fb and Information Corp Strike Pay Deal for Australian Content material

Facebook and News Corp Strike Pay Deal for Australian Content

MELBOURNE, Australia – Facebook agreed to pay Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for its journalistic content in Australia a month after the social media platform temporarily blocked news links within the country because legislation pushed digital giants to compensate publishers.

The multi-year deal, announced on Tuesday, includes news content from major conservative Murdoch media outlets such as The Australian, a national newspaper and news site news.com.au, as well as other publications from major cities, regions and communities.

It comes a month after Google announced its own three-year global agreement with News Corp to pay for the publisher’s news content, and under heavy criticism Facebook stepped back from its drastic move to block news links from being shared or viewed in Australia.

Few details were released, including how much Facebook News Corp pays for content.

In a statement on Tuesday, News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson said the agreement, which he called a “milestone”, “would have a material and significant impact on our Australian news business.”

News Corp leaders, Thomson added, “had a global debate” as the rise of the digital giants impoverished the news industry. With the deal, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, and his team would have contributed to “creating a future for journalism that was under extreme stress”.

However, critics said the deal did little to guarantee the kind of public interest journalism touted by the Australian government when it proposed legislation that was passed last month.

“There are no guarantees that the public will benefit,” said Tanya Notley, a communications professor at Western Sydney University, who noted that the first major news companies to do business with Facebook were conservative and aligned with the current government were.

Others said it further emphasized the excessive power of social media companies to control news and public information. “They’re the keepers of the news for public consumption,” said Marc Cheong, a researcher on digital ethics at the University of Melbourne.

In a statement, Facebook said the agreements would help people gain access to news articles and breaking news videos from a network of national, urban, rural and suburban newsrooms.

“We are determined to bring Facebook news to Australia,” said Andrew Hunter, director of Facebook partnerships in Australia and New Zealand.

That was a distinctly different tone from what the tech giant struck in February when Facebook blocked messages in Australia.

At the time, William Easton, executive director of Facebook Australia and New Zealand, said of the draft Australian law: “The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content.”

While the Australian government has pointed to the consolidation of digital advertising spending in companies like Google and Facebook, the tech giants say they are benefiting news companies by driving traffic to their websites.

Facebook has also announced tentative collective bargaining agreements with independent news organizations such as Private Media, Schwartz Media and Solstice Media. So far, however, only agreements with News Corp and Seven West Media, another large conservative news company, have been cemented.

Sky News Australia, also owned by Mr. Murdoch, extended an existing agreement with Facebook.

Categories
Business

Fb Ends Ban on Political Promoting

Facebook Lifts Ban on Political Advertising

SAN FRANCISCO – Facebook announced on Wednesday that it intends to lift the ban on political advertising on its network and to resume a form of digital advertising that has been criticized for spreading misinformation and falsehoods and inflaming voters.

The social network said it would allow advertisers to purchase new ads on “social issues, elections or politics” starting Thursday. This is evident from a copy of an email sent to political advertisers and viewed by the New York Times. These advertisers are required to perform a series of identity checks before they are allowed to serve the ads, according to the company.

“We introduced this temporary ban after the November 2020 elections to avoid confusion or abuse after election day,” Facebook said in a blog post. “We have had a lot of feedback on this and learned more about political ads and campaigns during this election cycle. For this reason, we plan to use the coming months to take a closer look at how these ads work in our service and to determine where further changes are appropriate. “

Political advertising on Facebook has long been faced with questions. Mark Zuckerberg, the executive director of Facebook, said he wanted to maintain a largely straightforward attitude towards the speech on the site – including political advertisements – unless it would pose direct harm to the public or individuals, saying that he ” does not want “the arbiter of truth. “

However, after the 2016 presidential election, the company and intelligence officials discovered that Russians had used Facebook ads to sow dissatisfaction among Americans. Former President Donald J. Trump also used Facebook’s political ads to reinforce claims of an “invasion” of the Mexican border in 2019, among other things.

Facebook banned political ads late last year to stave off misinformation and threats of violence related to the November presidential election. In September, the company announced that it would ban new political ads for the week leading up to election day and act swiftly against posts that were intended to prevent people from voting. In October, Facebook expanded this action by stating that it would ban all political and thematic advertising after polls were closed for an indefinite period on November 3rd.

The company eventually limited itself to groups and sites that were spreading certain types of misinformation, such as: B. Prevent people from voting or registering to vote. It has spent billions of dollars eradicating foreign influence campaigns and other forms of interference from malicious government agencies and other bad actors.

In December, Facebook lifted the ban to allow some advertisers in Georgia to post political-themed and candidacy ads for the state’s January Senate election. Otherwise, the ban remained in force for the remaining 49 states.

Attitudes towards how political advertising should be treated on Facebook are decidedly mixed. Politicians, who are often not well known, can use Facebook to raise their profile and awareness of their campaigns.

“Political ads aren’t bad things in and of themselves,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, professor of media studies and author of a book on Facebook’s impact on democracy. “They do an essential service by directly representing the concerns or positions of the candidate.”

He added, “When you ban all campaign ads on the most accessible, affordable platform out there, you tend the balance to the candidates who can afford radio and television.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also said political advertising on Facebook can be a crucial component of democratic digital campaigning strategies.

Some political ad buyers welcomed the lifting of the ad ban.

“The advertising ban was something that Facebook did to appease the public for the misinformation being spread on the platform,” said Eileen Pollet, digital campaign strategist and founder of Ravenna Strategies. “But it hurt really good actors, while bad actors had a completely free hand. And now, especially since the elections were over, the ban has really hurt nonprofits and local organizations. “

Facebook has long tried to pull the needle between a forceful moderation of its guidelines and a lighter touch. For years, Mr Zuckerberg defended politicians’ right to say what they wanted on Facebook, but that changed last year amid mounting concerns about possible violence related to the November elections.

In January, Facebook banned Mr. Trump from using his account and posting it on the platform after delegitimizing election results on social media and sparking a violent uprising among his supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Facebook said Mr. Trump’s suspension was “indefinite”. The decision is currently under scrutiny by the Facebook Oversight Board, a third-party company founded by the company made up of journalists, academics, and others that will rule on some of the company’s delicate decisions regarding content policy enforcement. A decision is expected to be made in the next few months.

On Thursday, political advertisers on Facebook can submit new ads or activate existing political ads that have already been approved. Each ad comes with a small disclaimer stating that it was “paid for” by a political organization. For those buying new ads, it could take up to a week to complete the process of authorizing identity and verifying the ad, according to Facebook.

Categories
Business

Fb Lifts Ban on Political Promoting

Facebook Lifts Ban on Political Advertising

SAN FRANCISCO – Facebook announced Wednesday that it intends to lift the ban on political advertising on its network and resume a form of digital advertising that has been criticized for spreading misinformation, lies and voter inflammation.

The social network said it would allow advertisers to purchase new ads on “social issues, elections or politics” starting Thursday. This is evident from a copy of an email sent to political advertisers and viewed by the New York Times. These advertisers are required to perform a series of identity checks before they are allowed to serve the ads, according to the company.

“We introduced this temporary ban after the November 2020 elections to avoid confusion or abuse after election day,” Facebook said in a blog post. “We have had a lot of feedback on this and learned more about political ads and campaigns during this election cycle. For this reason, we plan to use the coming months to take a closer look at how these ads work in our service and to determine where further changes are appropriate. “

Political advertising on Facebook has long been faced with questions. Mark Zuckerberg, the executive director of Facebook, said he wanted to maintain a largely straightforward attitude towards the speech on the site – including political advertisements – unless it would pose direct harm to the public or individuals, saying that he ” does not want “the arbiter of truth. “

However, after the 2016 presidential election, the company and intelligence officials discovered that Russians had used Facebook ads to sow dissatisfaction among Americans. Former President Donald J. Trump also used Facebook’s political ads to reinforce claims of an “invasion” of the Mexican border in 2019, among other things.

Facebook banned political ads late last year to stave off misinformation and threats of violence related to the November presidential election. In September, the company announced that it would ban new political ads for the week leading up to election day and act swiftly against posts that were intended to prevent people from voting. In October, Facebook expanded this action by stating that it would ban all political and thematic advertising after polls were closed for an indefinite period on November 3rd.

In December, the company lifted the ban to allow some advertisers to advertise political issues and running for Georgia for the January runoff in the state. Otherwise, the ban remained in force for the remaining 49 states.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Categories
Business

Fb Bans Myanmar Army Accounts in Aftermath of Coup

Facebook Bans Myanmar Military Accounts in Aftermath of Coup

SAN FRANCISCO – Facebook announced Wednesday that it banned Myanmar’s militarily and militarily controlled state and media units from its platforms weeks after the military toppled the country’s fragile democratic government.

The move plunged the social network directly into Myanmar’s post-coup politics – and left no question unanswered that it was picking sides in a heated political struggle.

After years of criticism of how the Myanmar military used the website, Facebook acted, among other things, to incite hatred against the country’s mostly Muslim Rohingya minority. Since the coup earlier this month that toppled civilian leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and returned Myanmar to full military rule, the military has repeatedly shut down the internet and blocked access to major social media sites, including Facebook.

The social network went offline a few days ago on the main news site of the Myanmar military and another site on the state television channel. Official reports by high-ranking military leaders in Myanmar linked to the violence in Rohingya in 2018 were also deleted. However, many other sites related to the military were still online.

Now Facebook has taken further measures to make it clear that it is making a political judgment. In a statement, the company said it banned “remaining” accounts related to the military because the coup was “an emergency”.

“Events since the February 1 coup, including deadly violence, have sparked the need for this ban,” the company said. The risk of leaving the Myanmar military on Facebook and Instagram is “too great”. It was said that the military was banned indefinitely.

The action underscores the difficulty Facebook is facing in terms of what it allows on its website. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, has long advocated freedom of speech and merely positions the website as a platform and technology service that does not stand in the way of government or social disputes.

But Mr Zuckerberg has been increasingly scrutinized by lawmakers, regulators and users for this attitude and for allowing hate speech, misinformation and content that incites violence on Facebook.

Over time, Facebook has become more active, which is published on its platform, especially last year with the US election. Last year it hit pages and posts on the QAnon conspiracy theory movement. And last month, Facebook banned then-President Donald J. Trump from using the service for at least the remainder of his tenure after urging his supporters to oppose the election results, sparking a riot in the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Trump still cannot post on Facebook.

Critics have said that many of these steps were too little, too late.

Categories
Business

Fb Strikes Deal to Restore Information Sharing in Australia

Facebook Strikes Deal to Restore News Sharing in Australia

SAN FRANCISCO – Facebook announced Monday that it had signed a contract with the Australian government that would allow users and publishers in the country to re-share and display links to news articles on the social network.

Facebook blocked the sharing or viewing of news links in Australia last week because the country should pass a law requiring tech companies to negotiate with media publishers and compensate them for the content that appears on their websites.

The legislation includes a code of conduct that enables media companies to negotiate the value of their news content individually or jointly with digital platforms.

On Monday, the Australian government added changes to the proposed code. This included a two-month mediation period, which gave both sides more time to negotiate Trade deals that could help Facebook avoid operating under the terms of the Code.

In return, Facebook agreed to restore news links and articles for Australian users “in the coming days,” according to Josh Frydenberg, Australian treasurer, and Paul Fletcher, minister for communications, infrastructure, cities and the arts.

“It is important that the changes strengthen the hand of regional and small publishers in obtaining adequate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms,” ​​the statement added.

Campbell Brown, Facebook’s vice president of global news partnerships, said in a statement: “We’re restoring news on Facebook in Australia in the coming days. Going forward, the government has made it clear that we can still choose whether or not messages appear on Facebook so that we are not automatically foreclosed. “

Mike Isaac reported from San Francisco and Damien Cave from Sydney, Australia.

This is a developing story and will be updated.