Categories
Business

Google Goals to Be the Anti-Amazon of E-Commerce. It Has a Lengthy Approach to Go.

OAKLAND, Calif. – Google has tried, with little success, copying Amazon’s Playbook to become the internet’s mall. Now it is trying something else: the anti-Amazon strategy.

Google is trying to present itself as a cheaper and less restrictive option for independent sellers. And it focuses on driving traffic to the sellers’ websites rather than selling their own version of products like Amazon does.

Last year, Google eliminated merchant fees and allowed sellers to list their goods in search results for free. Attempts are also being made to make it easier for small, independent stores to upload their product inventory to appear in search results and buy ads on Google by partnering with Shopify, which operates online stores for 1.7 million merchants who sell directly to consumers.

But like Google’s many attempts during its two-decade quest to compete with Amazon, this one shows little sign of work. Google doesn’t have anything as enticing as the $ 295 billion that flowed through Amazon’s third-party marketplace in 2020. The amount of goods people buy on Google is “very small” by comparison – probably around $ 1 billion, said Juozas Kaziukenas, founder of Marketplace Pulse, a research company.

Amazon is a staple in the lives of many Americans. It has usurped Google as a starting point for buyers and has become important for marketers alike. Amazon’s global advertising business grew 30 percent to $ 17.6 billion in 2020, followed by Google and Facebook in the US.

As the pandemic has forced many stores to go online, Google has created a new opening to advertise to sellers who are unsure about whether to build their stores on Amazon.

Christina Stang, 33, opened Fritzy’s roller-skating store near Pacific Beach, San Diego last March. Shelter-in-place orders forced them to set up an online storefront on Shopify.

She was lucky. She sat on a huge supply of skates as demand increased as skating videos became popular on TikTok during the pandemic.

She linked her Shopify account to Google’s retail software and started buying so-called smart shopping ads. Google’s algorithms work within an allocated budget and choose where to display ads and which products to offer. In 2020, she spent $ 1,800 on ads that were viewed 3.6 million times for $ 247,000 in revenue.

She considered selling her products on the Amazon marketplace, but worried about what Amazon’s fees would mean for her already low profit margins. She also loved that Google was redirecting people to their carefully curated website instead of keeping them in their own store like Amazon.

“I could sell on Amazon and not make real money, but have a bigger online presence,” said Ms. Stang. “It didn’t seem like a good idea.”

Recently, however, she has experienced one of the downsides of being in the middle of the Google and Shopify partnership. Your shop hasn’t been able to list products since January because Google suspended your account. Their shipping costs were said to be more expensive on Google than on their Shopify-powered website, although they were no different.

Shopify told her it was a Google issue. Google’s customer service reps recommended that she hire a web designer. She continues to make it without Google, but it has hurt her largely positive experience.

“That cut my knees off completely,” she said. “I’m a small business and I don’t have hundreds or thousands of dollars to solve this problem.”

Sellers often complain about Amazon’s fees, which can make up a quarter of any sale without the advertising costs and pressure to spend more to be successful. Merchants on Amazon have no direct relationship with their customers, which limits their ability to communicate with them and generate future business. And because everything is in the Amazon world, it’s more difficult to create a unique look and feel that expresses a brand’s identity in the way companies can on their own websites.

Since 2002 when a price comparison site called Froogle was launched, a confusing game of the word “frugal” that required a rebranding five years later, Google has struggled to develop a cohesive vision for its shopping experience.

It tried to challenge Amazon directly by piloting its own same-day delivery service, but the project closed when costs skyrocketed. Attempts have been made to partner with traditional retail giants only to see the alliances wither due to a lack of sales. It built its own marketplace to make it easier for shoppers to buy the things they find on Google, but couldn’t get consumers off their Amazon habit.

Last year, Google enlisted Bill Ready, a former chief operating officer at PayPal, to fill a new leadership position and drive a revision of its purchasing strategy.

Around the time of his hiring, Sundar Pichai, the executive director of Google, warned executives that the new approach could mean a short-term cut in advertising revenue, according to two people familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because they were not allowed to discuss them publicly . He asked the teams to support the e-commerce push as it was a priority for the company.

As the pandemic fueled huge demand for online purchases, Google eliminated fees so retailers could list products for free, and in 2012 it went back to a decision to only allow advertisers to display goods on their shopping page.

Three months after Mr. Ready was hired, Google said the free listings were showing up in top search results. Then Google said customers could buy products directly from merchants on Google with no commissions. Google will also open its platform to third parties like Shopify and PayPal so sellers can continue to use their existing tools to manage inventory and orders, as well as process payments.

The partnership with Shopify was particularly significant as hundreds of thousands of small businesses came to the software platform during the pandemic. According to research firm eMarketer, around 9 percent of online shopping sales in the United States in October were in stores operated by Shopify. That was a 6 percent increase last year and the second largest after Amazon’s 37 percent share.

Harley Finkelstein, president of Shopify, said Google and Shopify are developing new ways for merchants to sell through Google services, such as experiments that allow customers to buy items directly on YouTube and see which products are doing business on Google Maps.

Mr. Ready walked a fine line when it came to Amazon, which is a big buyer of ads on Google, but made it clear that he believed that Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce posed a threat to other retailers.

“Nobody wants to live in a world where there is only one place to buy something and retailers don’t want to be dependent on gatekeepers,” he said in an interview.

Google said it had increased the number of sellers that appear in its results by 80 percent in 2020, with the most significant growth coming from small and medium-sized businesses. And existing retailers are listing more products.

Overstock.com, a seller of discount furniture and home bedding, said it has paid in the past to list products on Google. But now that the listings are free, Overstock is also adding low-margin products.

“If all purchases start and end on Amazon, it’s bad for the industry,” said Jonathan E. Johnson, CEO of Overstock. “It’s nice to have another 800-pound tech gorilla in this room.”

It remains unclear whether an increase in the number of retailers and entries on Google will ultimately change online shopping habits.

BACtrack, a manufacturer of breathalyzers, has more than doubled its advertising spend on Amazon in the past two years because that is where customers are located, while 6 percent less was spent on advertising its products on Google.

“It seems like more and more people are skipping Google and going straight to Amazon,” said Keith Nothacker, CEO of BACtrack.

Categories
Business

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

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

A second Google A.I. researcher says the corporate fired her.

Two months after the horrific exit of a well-known artificial intelligence researcher at Google, a second AI researcher at the company said she was fired after criticizing the way employees were treated for alleviating bias and toxicity in their artificial intelligence combat systems.

Margaret Mitchell, known as Meg, one of the leaders of Google’s Ethical AI team, posted a tweet Friday afternoon saying, “I’m fired.”

Google confirmed that her employment relationship has ended. “After reviewing the conduct of this manager, we confirmed that there were several violations of our code of conduct,” the company said in a statement.

The statement went on to claim that Dr. Mitchell violated the company’s security guidelines by removing confidential documents and private employee data from the Google network. The company previously said Dr. Mitchell tried to remove such files, Axios news site reported last month.

Dr. Mitchell said Friday night that she would have public comment soon.

Dr. Mitchell’s post on Twitter comes less than two months after Timnit Gebru, the other head of the Ethical AI team at Google, said she was fired from the company after criticizing its approach to minority attitudes as well as its approach to bias AI After the departure of Dr. Gebru from the company criticized Dr. Mitchell emphatically and publicly expressed Google’s stance on the matter.

More than a month ago, Dr. Mitchell that she was banned from her work accounts. On Wednesday, she tweeted that she stayed locked out after trying to get Dr. Gebru who is black to defend.

“Exhausted from the endless deterioration to save the face of the upper crust in tech at the expense of minority minority careers,” she wrote.

Dr. Mitchell’s departure from the company was another example of the mounting tension between the top management of Google and the workforce, who are more open than those of other large companies. The news also highlighted a growing conflict in the tech industry over the bias around AI, linked to issues affecting the recruitment of employees in under-represented communities.

Today’s AI systems can bear human prejudice because they learn their skills by analyzing large amounts of digital data. Because the researchers and engineers who build these systems are often white men, many fear that researchers are not paying this topic the attention it needs.

Google announced in a blog post yesterday that a company executive, Marian Croak, who is Black, will oversee a new group within the company dedicated to responsible AI

Categories
Business

Fb, Google and Twitter C.E.O.s to Face Lawmakers Once more: Dwell Updates

Here’s what you need to know:

Credit…Lm Otero Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press

The chief executives of Facebook, Google and Twitter will face skeptical lawmakers again next month when a congressional committee questions them about the ways disinformation spreads across their platforms.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee said Thursday that it would hold a hearing on March 25 with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sundar Pichai of Google and Jack Dorsey of Twitter.

The committee has been examining the future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields the platforms from lawsuits over much of the content posted by their users. The attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, which included participants with ties to QAnon and other conspiracy theories that have spread widely online, has renewed concerns that the law allows the platforms to take a hands-off approach to extremist content.

“For far too long, Big Tech has failed to acknowledge the role they’ve played in fomenting and elevating blatantly false information to its online audiences,” a group of the committee’s top Democrats said in a statement. “Industry self-regulation has failed.”

Andy Stone, a spokesman for Facebook, said the company “believes it’s time to update the rules of the internet, and this hearing should be another important step in the process.”

The House Judiciary Committee announced its own set of hearings on the tech industry on Thursday. It said it would hold multiple hearings on how to update antitrust laws to address the power of the tech giants. The committee questioned chief executives before concluding a lengthy investigation into the companies last year.

The Judiciary Committee’s first hearing will take place on Wednesday.

An all-electric Renault Zoe. Renault’s chief executive, Luca de Meo, last month presented a plan to return the automaker to profitability.Credit…Samuel Zeller for The New York Times

Renault, the French carmaker, reported a loss of 8 billion euros, or $9.7 billion, in 2020 as the pandemic gutted sales, but the company said that was profitable in the later part of the year.

Most of the annual loss stemmed from Renault’s stake in its troubled partner, Nissan. Losses at the Japanese carmaker drained €5 billion from the bottom line, Renault said. In addition, Renault car sales plunged 20 percent for the year, to just short of three million vehicles.

“After a first half impacted by Covid-19, the group has significantly turned around its performance in the second half,” Luca de Meo, Renault’s chief executive, said in a statement, without giving a figure. He said that 2021 was “set to be difficult given the unknowns regarding the health crisis as well as electronic components supply shortages.”

In 2021, shortages of semiconductors, a problem for almost all carmakers, could cut production by as much as 100,000 vehicles, Renault said.

Mr. de Meo, who became Renault’s chief executive in July, last month announced a plan to return to profitability that includes cuts in production capacity, sales of fewer models and increased parts sharing among vehicles to simplify manufacturing.

A tractor trailer is stuck in the ice and snow in Killeen, Texas. The winter storms that wreaked havoc across the South and Midwest have affected futures for oil and natural gas prices.Credit…Joe Raedle/Getty Images

  • Oil futures are trending downward after jumping earlier in the week, while natural gas gyrated through the day. Both were affected by the fierce winter storms that caused millions of people to go without power across Texas this week.

  • West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark crude, was down 2 percent on Friday, to about $59.35 a barrel. It had jumped 6 percent between Friday and Wednesday, as oil production was hindered by the weather.

  • Natural gas futures, which rose as a result of the storms, have moved up and down in recent days. On Friday they initially fell 3 percent before rebounding and eventually gaining nearly 1 percent from Thursday’s close. They still remain elevated from last week.

  • Word that the Biden administration was offering to restart talks to restore an accord limiting Iran’s nuclear program was seen as weighing on oil prices. Lifting sanctions against Iran could allow it sell more oil on the global market. Brent crude, the international benchmark, was down 1.2 percent on Friday, to just over $63 a barrel.

  • Wall Street had an upbeat start of trading on Friday. The S&P 500 rose 0.2 percent after falling 0.4 percent on Thursday, halting four consecutive days of gains.

  • Shares of Uber rose 0.5 percent after Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that the company’s drivers must be classified as workers entitled to a minimum wage and vacation time. The case had been closely watched because of its ramifications for the gig economy.

  • European markets were broadly higher, with the Stoxx Europe 600 up 0.5 percent and FTSE 100 in Britain gaining 0.2 percent. Asian markets closed mixed, with the Nikkei in Japan down 0.7 percent while the Shanghai composite in China rose 0.6 percent.

  • Purchasing managers index data for February, from Markit, showed a range of trends across Europe. The France composite output index hit a three-month low, reflecting the restrictions on business activity imposed by the latest lockdown. The Germany composite index rose, helped by an export-led manufacturing upturn.

  • In Britain, retail sales fell 8.2 percent in January compared with the preceding month, government data said, a downturn that was sharpened by a lockdown that started in the new year. But the decline was less than expected, and also not as bad as the 22 percent drop seen in April, when Britain went into an earlier lockdown. The Office of National Statistics said some of the improvement probably came from businesses learning to adapt to lockdowns, with more online and click-and-collect sales.

Manessa Grady and her sons Zechariah, 8, left, and Noah, 9, were among the millions of Texas residents who lost power this week.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times

In California, wildfires and heat waves in recent years forced utilities to shut off power to millions of homes and businesses. Now, Texas is learning that deadly winter storms and intense cold can do the same.

Bill Magness, the president and chief executive of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid operator, said on Thursday that Texas was “seconds and minutes” from a catastrophic blackout this week as rotating outages were used to control the flow of electricity.

The country’s two largest states have taken very different approaches to managing their energy needs — Texas deregulated aggressively, letting the free market flourish, while California embraced environmental regulations. Yet the two states are confronting the same ominous reality: They may be woefully unprepared for the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters caused by climate change.

Blackouts in Texas and California have revealed that power plants can be strained and knocked offline by the kind of extreme cold and hot weather that climate scientists have said will become more common as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere.

The problems in Texas and California highlight the challenge the Biden administration will face in modernizing the electricity system to run entirely on wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and other zero-emission technologies by 2035 — a goal that President Biden set during the 2020 campaign.

The federal government and energy businesses may have to spend trillions of dollars to harden electricity grids against the threat posed by climate change and to move away from the fossil fuels responsible for the warming of the planet in the first place. These are not new ideas. Scholars have long warned that American electricity grids, which are run regionally, will come under increasing strain and needed major upgrades.

“We really need to change our paradigm, particularly utilities, because they are becoming much more vulnerable to disaster,” Najmedin Meshkati, an engineering professor at the University of Southern California, said about blackouts in Texas and California. “They need to always think about literally the worst-case scenario because the worst-case scenario is going to happen.”

Video

transcript

Back

transcript

Congressman Calls Robinhood’s Help Line and Gets Voicemail

After telling the House Financial Services Committee about the suicide of Robinhood user Alex Kearns, who died believing he had lost $730,000 on the brokerage app, Representative Sean Casten called its help line.

June 2020, Alex Kearns, who was 20 years old at the time, from Naperville, Illinois, killed himself, largely thanks to a bug in the Robinhood system. The bug was that he turned on the app, it said he owed $730,000 that he did not have, because of options positions that he thought canceled out but didn’t appear to. He called the help line. The help line, of course, was not manned, as we’ve discussed. He sent several panicked emails — three, to be precise — did not receive a response. Ultimately there was a response from the emails saying that, in fact, his positions were covered. But by that point, it was too late, because he had taken his own life. The — this is a gentleman who is 20 years old. Under Illinois law, he was not allowed to buy a beer, but he was allowed to take on $730,000 in positions and exposure that he did not have the liquidity to cover. Your mission, Mr. Tenev, is to democratize finance. But the history of financial regulation is to protect people like Alex Kearns from the system. As the old joke goes, if you’re playing poker and you can’t figure out who the fish is at the table, you should leave the table because you’re probably the fish. And there is an innate tension in your business model between democratizing finance, which is a noble calling, and being a conduit to feed fish to sharks. So I’m nervous. I think I got an exposure. And I call your help line now. Let’s call and let’s listen in the time we have remaining to what I’m going to hear on the other end of the phone. Voicemail: “Thank you for calling Robinhood. Please visit us at robinhood.com or on our app for support. If you have an urgent trading need, please make sure to include details of it when reaching out. Thanks have a great day.”

Video player loadingAfter telling the House Financial Services Committee about the suicide of Robinhood user Alex Kearns, who died believing he had lost $730,000 on the brokerage app, Representative Sean Casten called its help line.CreditCredit…via C-Span

The chief executives of Robinhood, Reddit, Citadel and Melvin Capital Management were among the witnesses at a hearing on the GameStop trading frenzy held by the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.

  • Vlad Tenev, the chief executive of Robinhood, was the target for both Democrats and Republicans, fielding more than half of the lawmakers’ questions. “I love your company because it does, when correctly managed, provide investment opportunities for individuals who are currently frozen out of the markets for one reason or another,” said Representative Anthony Gonzalez, Republican of Ohio. He added: “At the same time, though, I believe a vulnerability was clearly exposed in your business model.”

  • Representative Sean Casten, an Illinois Democrat, capped his sharp questioning of Mr. Tenev, in which he relayed the story of a 20-year-old college student who killed himself last summer believing that he’d lost more than $700,000, by dialing the Robinhood help line and letting everyone listen in as a short message was played and the call was terminated. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, said Robinhood’s decisions had “harmed customers,” and accused it of passing on hidden costs to its customers.

  • Keith Gill — known on YouTube as Roaring Kitty — testified that his interest in the company was based on his belief that the market was underestimating the brick-and-mortar retailer’s value. His testimony included winking references — such as dangling what appeared to be his oft-worn red headband off a picture of a kitten visible over his shoulder and the statement “I am not a cat” — to internet meme culture.

  • Several harsh questions were directed at Kenneth C. Griffin, the chief of Citadel. Members of Congress asked skeptical questions about Citadel’s practice of paying to trade against customers at online brokers like Robinhood. Mr. Griffin tried to explain the intricacies of the business but was often cut off. “Our folks are tired of bailing you all out when you screw up and gamble with the retirement fund. And that’s exactly what happens every single moment,” Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, said to him.

Categories
Business

Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Fb

The Wall Street Journal had previously reported on aspects of the draft complaint.

The recent antitrust proceedings against Google and Facebook have put Big Tech’s lucrative businesses at the center. In October, the Justice Department sued Google and signed an agreement with Apple to use Google as the pre-selected search engine for iPhones and other devices.

“This idea of ​​the big technology platforms competing against each other is very exaggerated,” said Sally Hubbard, a former assistant attorney general in the New York City Anti-Trust Office who now works at the Open Markets Institute, a think tank. “In many ways they strengthen each other’s monopoly power.”

Google and Facebook accounted for more than half of all digital advertising spending in 2019. In addition to displaying advertisements on their own platforms like the Google search engine and the Facebook homepage, websites, app developers and publishers rely on the companies to advertise their pages.

The agreement between Facebook and Google, codenamed “Jedi Blue” within Google, affects a growing segment of the online advertising market known as programmatic advertising. Online advertising generates hundreds of billions of dollars in global sales each year, and automated buying and selling of advertising space accounts for more than 60 percent of total sales, according to researchers.

In the milliseconds between when a user clicks a link to a webpage and the ads load on the page, bids are placed behind the scenes for available ad space on marketplaces known as exchanges. The winning bid will be forwarded to an ad server. With both ad exchanges and Google’s ad server dominating, the company often ran its own exchanges.

A method called header bidding was developed to reduce reliance on Google’s ad platforms. News agencies and other websites could collect offers from multiple exchanges at the same time, helping to increase competition and better prices for publishers. According to one estimate, more than 70 percent of publishers had adopted the technology by 2016.

Google has developed an alternative called Open Bidding that supports an alliance of exchanges. While Open Bidding allows other exchanges to compete with Google at the same time, the search company charges a fee for each winning bid, and competitors say there is less transparency for publishers.

Categories
Business

Apple and Google Reduce Off Parler, an App That Drew Trump Supporters

According to a group of Amazon employees, Amazon assists Parler in operation by hosting its web traffic on its servers. These employees and at least one member of Congress have asked Amazon to ban Parler from this service, which could jeopardize its viability. Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.

Apple’s action is more of an issue for Parler than Google, as Apple requires all iPhone apps to go through the App Store. Google cut Parler out of its flagship Android app store, but it also allows apps to be downloaded from elsewhere, so Android users can still find the Parler app, just with a little more work. Parler will continue to be available through web browsers on phones and computers.

Before Apple blocked Parler on Saturday, Apple had given the company 24 hours to improve moderation and avoid being removed from the App Store. During this time, Parler appeared to have tried to remove some areas that appeared to call for violence.

For example, L. Lin Wood, an attorney who sued to overturn Mr. Trump’s election loss, wrote on Parler Thursday morning: “Prepare the firing squad. Pence goes first. “According to a screenshot in the Internet archive, the post was viewed at least 788,000 times. The post was removed on Saturday morning.

In a text message, Mr. Matze said the item had been removed “in accordance with Parler’s Terms of Use and Anti-Incitement to Violence Rules”. He said he wasn’t sure Apple knew Parler removed the post.

In a statement to Parler on Saturday, Apple said it had “continued to find direct threats of violence and incitement to illegal activity” in the app. Apple informed the company that its app cannot be approved in the App Store until “you have demonstrated your ability to effectively moderate and filter the dangerous and harmful content of your service”.

In an interview, Jeffrey Wernick, Parler’s chief operating officer, blamed “a culture of abandonment at Apple” for the company’s poor prospects. He said he would advise other platforms not to try and compete on Apple’s App Store. “Because if you raise money and attract investors and end up like Parler, what is it about?” he said.

Categories
Business

Google Denies Antitrust Claims in Early Response to U.S. Lawsuit

Google said Monday that it had not used its multi-billion dollar deals with other major technology firms to protect its position as the dominant online search engine. This was the company’s first formal rebuttal of Justice Department allegations that these deals violated antitrust laws.

The filing, a 42-page document, is a paragraph – and sometimes sentence – denial of claims by the government and a group of states that have joined their lawsuit. In the filing, Google says it “developed, continuously innovated and promoted” its search product as part of its mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”.

“People use Google Search because they choose, not because they’re forced to, or because they can’t just find alternative ways to search for information on the Internet,” the company said.

The filing is Google’s most significant to date in its antitrust battle with the Justice Department, but it will not be the last by a long way. The judge, Amit Mehta, said last week that the trial would not start until 2023.

Google has a growing number of legal disputes in the United States. Republican attorneys general in Texas and other states said in a lawsuit last week that Google broke the law to maintain and protect a monopoly on the technology that serves ads over the Internet.

A day later, a bipartisan group of states led by Colorado and Nebraska filed their own lawsuit focusing on the search business and expanded the Justice Department’s allegations in October. They asked to combine their case with the federal lawsuit.

The lawsuits are at the center of a growing legal backlash against the power of tech giants to act as gatekeepers for trade, communication and culture. The Federal Trade Commission and 40 attorneys general filed lawsuits against Facebook this month, saying they stamped out the competition by buying Instagram and WhatsApp, a lawsuit that the company could ultimately resolve if successful. Federal and state officials are also pursuing investigations against Amazon and Apple.

The Justice Department said in its lawsuit that Google had agreements with device manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and LG to ensure that it was the default search engine on their phones. This pole position is powerful and prevents competing search products like DuckDuckGo from growing, prosecutors said. Eleven attorneys general signed the lawsuit when it was filed. Other states, including California, have asked to join the case.

The company claims that buying standard shelf space on mobile devices is no different from a consumer brand buying preferred shelf space in a grocery store. It is also argued that it is easy for Apple and Android smartphone users to switch from its search service to that of a competitor.

In its filing on Monday, Google admitted that some of the government’s claims were upheld: True, the company said that some dictionaries classify “Google” as a verb. It admitted that “it started in a garage in Menlo Park 22 years ago, creating an innovative way to search the internet. “

And it admitted that its parent company Alphabet is valued at around $ 1 trillion – but denied that such a claim could be made through Google itself.

A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Categories
Business

10 States Accuse Google of Abusing Monopoly in On-line Adverts

Ten attorneys general on Wednesday accused Google of illegally abusing its monopoly over the technology used to display ads online, adding to the company’s legal troubles with a case at the heart of its business.

Prosecutors said Google was overloading publishers for the ads that were running on the internet, crowding out competitors trying to question the company’s dominance. They also said that Google had an agreement with Facebook to curtail the social network’s own efforts to compete with Google for advertising dollars. Google said the suit was “unfounded” and would fight the case.

“If the free market were a baseball game, Google would position itself as the pitcher, batsman, and referee,” Texas attorney general Ken Paxton said in a video on Twitter announcing plans for the suit.

The complaint filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas adds to the fierce bipartisan backlash against one of the largest tech companies in the country. Regulators in the US and Europe have focused on the oversized role Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google play in the modern economy, and everything from the way we shop to the information and entertainment that is available we see shaped.

In October, the Justice Department and eleven states said Google illegally maintained a monopoly over online search engines and the ads in user results. Another case against Google, filed by a separate group of states, is expected shortly. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission and more than 40 states accused Facebook of illegally suppressing competition by acquiring younger rivals, arguing that the company should be wound up. Apple and Amazon are also under federal antitrust investigations.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, is the first by regulators in the US to focus on the tools that connect ad space buyers with publishers who sell them. Ads make up a large part of business profits. The Justice Department has its own antitrust investigation into advertising technology, said one person with knowledge of the investigation.

Prosecutors asked for fines and structural changes in the company, but did not add any details.

The prosecutors who signed the lawsuit are all Republicans and they are not expected to be part of the Justice Department’s proceedings against the company. The other states’ lawsuit against Google, which could be filed as early as Thursday, is expected to be signed by Republicans and Democrats and could be combined with the federal agency’s case.

Google’s own system of selling ads on the Internet was built over more than a decade. In 2007, Google bought DoubleClick, which offered advertising technology and acted as a marketplace, in a business that has since been criticized as central to Google’s dominance. Google now controls the software at every step of the ad sales process.

The company competes with a wide variety of competitors when it comes to offering advertising technology, and its services work alongside those of its competitors. In the past few years, companies like AT&T and Amazon have been trying to break into the online ad sales market.

“Attorney General Paxton’s ad-tech claims are unfounded, but he carried on despite all the facts,” said a Google spokeswoman, Julie McAlister. “We will defend ourselves emphatically against his unfounded claims in court.”

Publishers like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation have long claimed that Google’s dominance allows the company to make a bigger cut on every sale without adding to the cost of content creation. Google’s success contrasts sharply with shrinking newsrooms and the closure of many local newspapers. This year, Google announced that news publishers would receive more than $ 1 billion through a new licensing program over the next three years.

After attaining a monopoly, Google was able to pressure publishers for a high proportion of every ad sold on its platforms, according to prosecutors.

“The monopoly tax that Google imposes on American companies – advertisers such as clothing brands, restaurants and brokers – is a tax ultimately borne by American consumers through higher prices and lower quality of the goods, services and information provided by these companies,” they said in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues that Google used a variety of tactics to become the dominant player in online advertising, hurting publishers, competitors and consumers in the process.

Prosecutors said that after purchasing DoubleClick, Google “quickly began to leverage its new position”.

They said Google then tried to destroy a process developed by publishers to create more competition in the online ad market. Under this system, publishers could sell ad space on more online marketplaces at the same time, making them less dependent on Google’s ad technology.

The states said Google maintained its dominance in part through an agreement with Facebook to limit the social network’s involvement in the process. In return, Google gave Facebook an advantage in other ad auctions it ran, the prosecutor said.

“Companies’ efforts to avoid competition have been successful,” they said in the lawsuit. Facebook, which did not immediately post a comment, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Ms. McAlister, the Google spokeswoman, said the allegations regarding Facebook were inaccurate. A Facebook representative declined to comment.

With the data behind many of the most popular services on the Internet, the two companies sit together on a treasure trove of data about what people are interested in, where they are going, and who they are interacting with. This information will help advertisers reach the right audience for marketing. Both companies also sell ads for their own websites.

According to research firm eMarketer, the two companies accounted for around 54 percent of digital advertising in the US in 2019. Google’s share was around 31 percent and Facebook’s 23 percent.

The publicly released version of the complaint is heavily edited and obscures important evidence that prosecutors cite to represent their case. However, the document refers to internal documents from Google and Facebook. In several places it is said that Google codenamed projects that were inspired by the Star Wars series, but the names themselves are black on the page.

The complaint widens the focus of lawsuits on Google’s business, said Charlotte Slaiman, director of competition policy at Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that has campaigned for more regulation for Google.

“The strong market position that Google has in search has also helped them build that strong market position in advertising technology and that is part of that complaint,” said Ms. Slaiman. “It’s also an indication of how broad the competitive challenges are in big tech.

Mr Paxton led the investigation into Google despite allegations of abusing the power of his office. Seven of Mr. Paxton’s lawyers said this year that he had done a favor and bribed a friend and donor. The employees have since left Mr. Paxton’s office or have been on leave or dismissed immediately.

Mr. Paxton was also charged with securities fraud in 2015. He has denied these allegations, as well as recent allegations made by his own employees.

He’s also a prominent ally of President Trump, leading some critics to view his investigation into Google as part of a larger conservative campaign against the tech giants.

But Ms. Slaiman said she believed that there would ultimately be bipartisan support for the concerns raised in the lawsuit.

She hoped Washington lawmakers could respond to the concerns by passing laws to contain businesses, rather than leaving the task entirely to prosecutors.

“It is really important that antitrust law is enforced,” she said, “but much more is needed.

Maurice Stucke, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and co-author of “Competition Overdose,” said the online advertising industry is a place for regulators to look and noted that it is also attracting the attention of regulators in Australia has drawn France and Britain.

“In no other market is there a unit that represents most buyers, most sellers, and controls the leading exchange,” he said. “You can create a system that looks tough and competitive on the surface, but really isn’t.”

The allegations of collusion with Facebook were noticed, Stucke said, because such examples of anti-competitive behavior are usually viewed as the linchpin of strong antitrust proceedings – the kind of evidence that should interest more states and even the Justice Department.

Cecilia Kang contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Health

Google search panels deal with misinformation about Covid vaccines

Google logo of the American multinational technology company at Googleplex, the corporate headquarters complex of Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc.

Alex Tai | SOPA pictures | LightRocket | Getty Images

LONDON – Google launched new bulletin boards in search results on Thursday to counter false claims about the coronavirus vaccines.

The internet giant said in a blog post that the feature would first be rolled out in the UK, where people started vaccinating people with the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech.

The feature will be rolled out in other countries once they start approving vaccines.

Google has been updating its platforms for several months with features that display Covid-related data from governments and health agencies such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control to combat misinformation about the virus.

The YouTube video sharing service launched so-called knowledge panels on the virus back in March and is said to have been viewed 400 billion times. YouTube updated its guidelines in October to remove videos that made false claims about coronavirus vaccines.

A screenshot with Google’s new knowledge boards on coronavirus vaccine search results.

Ryan Browne | CNBC

It’s not clear how effective bulletin boards are in preventing internet users from believing misinformation about coronavirus. Fake conspiracy theories about the disease have spread like wildfire across social media platforms this year.

Tackling misinformation about the vaccines will be a mammoth task for tech giants like Google, Facebook and Twitter as governments around the world seek to immunize people against the disease.

Last week, Facebook announced it was removing false claims about Covid vaccines. This is part of his policy on posts that could result in “imminent physical harm”. Twitter has yet to say whether it will ban such posts.

Aside from introducing new features, Google announced on Thursday that it was earmarking $ 1.5 million to fund fact-checking research and create a hub for journalists to give them access to “scientific expertise and research updates.” to facilitate vaccines.