Google made a power move by communicating directly to Australian consumers with a pop-up on the Google search home page. The open letter to Aussies is the latest in response to Australia’s push to pass a law that would require Google and Facebook to pay media publications for their news content.
News media companies have suffered in many markets with the fall of print media and rise of online news, affecting the companies’ ability to collect ad revenue. The Australian government says that Australian news outlets have been impacted even more acutely by the coronavirus pandemic, with over one hundred local papers in the country laying off reporters and either stopping printing or closing entirely.
Google’s open letter to Aussies, penned by the Australia Managing Director, Mel Silva, warns that the rule would unfairly advantage big media industries by requiring Google to share data to help them artificially boost their rankings. This would jeopardize the quality of search results and possibly even user data, claiming “There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses.”
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the watchdog that authored the proposed law, says the open letter contains inaccuracies. They claim that Google would not be required to share any additional use data with the media unless it chooses too, and would also not require Google to start charging for its free services like Search and Youtube.
Of course, it is any company’s prerogative to communicate directly with its customers, even its non-paying customers. But if this communication is effective in wielding the power of Google’s millions of Australian civilians to counter the government’s regulations, it behooves Aussies to leverage Google to understand the facts and verify Google’s claims against the text of the regulation.
The decision to highlight bellicose language like “at risk” and “hurting” to describe the effects of the law, without explaining the proposed law itself, is a clear attempt to manipulate an emotional reaction from users by painting the law as a threat to free services, rather than an attempt to protect a healthy democracy.
The spread of misinformation online is threatening democracies around the world, and Google should take a hard look at its role in that.
Google published a more detailed blog post on the matter on May 31, entitled “A fact-based discussion about news online.” The post essentially claims that Google Australia doesn’t gain that much revenue from news searches (only 10 percent!) so how could it possibly be ‘taking’ that money from the media? Furthermore, 2018 Google searches accounted for 3.44 billion visits to Australian news publishers – at no charge to the publishers! That’s a lot of clicks! Can’t you feed your kids with them clicks, Aussie news monsters?
This is not the first time Google has made political noise. In 2018, Google displayed Youtube notices about an EU copyright proposal and in 2014, closed Google News in Spain entirely over a similar dispute as Australia.
In the end, the question remains – in Australia, the US, and elsewhere – whether tech giants like Google and Facebook should hold outsized market control of paid advertising online.
But the lengths Google is currently taking to undermine this governmental action is a testament to just how far this company has come in 22 years. In 1998, Google’s founders Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page published an academic paper from the Stanford computer science department entitled “The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine.” Yes, that search engine was named Google.
The paper describes a novel approach to enhance the effectiveness of a large-scale search engine in the early days of the internet. In addition to an apropos search result example for the term “Bill Clinton,” the paper comments on paid advertising.
In Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives, the authors assert that a conflict of interest could arise when a high-quality search result is counter to the goals of a paid advertiser. They conclude that “advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.” In 2019, paid advertising accounted for 70.9 percent of Google’s revenue.
Sure, the internet of 2020 is not the beloved wormhole of yesteryear, when the online world was mostly made of blogs, games, and community forums. Google has grown with the times (or even ahead of them), as any smart tech company should. So perhaps holding 2020 Google to a 1998 standard is unfair.
Nonetheless, I leave you with the authors’ conclusion to the advertising discussion from their original concept: “…we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.”
Transparency isn’t outdated, is it Google?
Too connected: FTC eyes Facebook antitrust lawsuit
(BUSINESS NEWS) Following other antitrust hearings, we’re expecting to hear more about the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against Facebook, soon.
Facebook might be wishing it had kept the “dislike” button.
On September 15, the Wall Street Journal announced that the Federal Trade Commission was preparing a possible antitrust lawsuit against the social media titan. Although the FTC has not made an official decision on whether to pursue the case, sources familiar with the situation expect a determination will be made on the matter sometime before the end of 2020. Facebook and the FTC both declined to comment when asked about the story.
The news comes following a year-long investigation by the FTC that has looked into anti-competitive practices by the Menlo Park-based company. This past July, the United States House of Representatives held hearings in which they grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook regarding their business practices. In August, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also testified in front of the FTC as part of the department’s antitrust probe into the organization.
The FTC seems to be especially interested in Facebook’s past acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, which they believe may have been done to stifle competition. In internal emails sent between Zuckerberg and Facebook’s former CFO David Ebersman back in 2012, the 36-year-old seemed worried that the apps could eventually pose a threat to the social media conglomerate.
“These businesses are nascent but the networks established, the brands are already meaningful, and if they grow to a large scale the could be very disruptive to us,” Zuckerberg wrote to Ebersman, “Given that we think our own valuation is fairly aggressive and that we’re vulnerable in mobile, I’m curious if we should consider going after one or two of them.”
When Ebersman asked him to clarify the benefits of the acquisitions, Zuckerberg stated the purchases would neutralize a competitor while improving Facebook.
“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc. now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again.” Zuckerberg said.
This isn’t the first time the FTC has investigated Facebook either. Last year the agency fined the company $5 billion for the mishandling of user’s personal information, the biggest penalty imposed by the federal government against a technology company. As a part of the settlement with the FTC in that case, Facebook also promised more comprehensive oversight of user data.
If the FTC does pursue an antitrust suit against Facebook, it could end up forcing the social media giant to spin off some of the companies it has acquired or place restrictions on how it does business. Considering how long it will take to file the litigation and prove the case in a courtroom, however, it seems that Zuckerberg will once again be “buying time.”
What you need to know about the historic TikTok deal (for now)
(BUSINESS NEWS) No one really knows what’s happening, but the TikTok deal’s impact on business, US-China relations, and the open internet could be huge.
So, maybe you’ve heard that Oracle and Walmart are buying TikTok for national security!
Um, not exactly.
Also, Trump banned TikTok!
Sort of? Maybe?
The terms of the proposal seem to shift daily, if not hourly. The sheer number of contradictory statements from every player suggests no one really knows what’s going on.
Just one example: Trump said the deal included a $5 billion donation to a fund for education for American youth. TikTok parent ByteDance, said, “Say what now?”
Here’s what we think we know (as of this writing):
Oracle and Walmart would get a combined 20 percent stake in a new U.S.-based company called TikTok Global. Combine that with current US investors in China’s ByteDance, TikTok’s parent, that would give American interests 53 percent. European and other investors would have 11 percent. China would retain 36 percent. (On Saturday Trump said China would have no interests at all. But that does not jibe with the reporting on the deal.)
Oracle would host all user data on its cloud, where it is promising “security will be 100 percent” to keep data safe from China’s prying eyes. But reporting has differed on whether Oracle will get full access to TikTok’s code and AI algorithms. Without full control, skeptics say, Oracle could be little more than a hosting service, and potential security issues would remain unaddressed.
Walmart says they’re excited about their “potential investment and commercial agreements,” suggesting they may be exploring e-commerce opportunities in the app.
The US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is overseen by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, still has to approve any deal.
As for the TikTok “ban” – which isn’t really a ban because current users can keep it – the Commerce Department postponed the deadline for kicking TikTok off U.S. app stores to September 27, to give time for the deal to be hammered out. Never mind that it’s still not clear whether the U.S. government has authority to do that. Unsurprisingly, ByteDance says it doesn’t in a lawsuit filed September 18.
Whatever happens with the whiplash of the deal’s particulars, there are bigger issues in play.
According to business news site Quartz, moving data storage to Oracle mirrors what companies like Apple have done in China: Appease the Chinese government by allowing all data hosting to be inside China. A similar move could “mark the US, too, shifting from a more laissez-faire approach to user data, to a more sovereign one,” says China tech reporter Jane Li.
In the meantime, TikTokkers keep TikTokking. White suburban moms continue to lip sync to rap songs in their kitchens. Gen Z continues to make fun of the president – and pretty much everything else.
And downloads of the app have skyrocketed.
Hobby Lobby increases minimum wage, but how much is just to save face?
(BUSINESS NEWS) Are their efforts to raise their minimum wage to $17/hour sincere, or more about saving face after bungling pandemic concerns?
The arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby announced this week that they will be raising their minimum full-time wage to $17/hour starting October 1st. This decision makes them the latest big retailer to raise wages during the pandemic (Target raised their minimum wage to $15/hour about three months ago, and Walmart and Amazon have temporarily raised wages). The current minimum wage for Hobby Lobby employees is $15/hour, which was implemented in 2014.
While a $17 minimum wage is a big statement for the company (even a $15 minimum wage cannot be agreed upon on the federal level) – and it is no doubt a coveted wage for the majority of the working class – it’s difficult to not see this move as an attempt to regain public support of the company.
When the pandemic first began, Hobby Lobby – with more than 900 stores and 43,000 employees nationwide – refused to close their stores despite being deemed a nonessential business (subsequently, a Dallas judge accused the company of endangering public health).
In April, Hobby Lobby furloughed almost all store employees and the majority of corporate and distribution employees without notice. They also ended emergency leave pay and suspended the use of company-provided paid time off benefits for employees during the furloughs – a decision that was widely criticized by the public, although the company claims the reason for this was so that employees would be able to take full advantage of government handouts during their furlough.
However, the furloughs are not Hobby Lobby’s first moment under fire. The Oklahoma-based Christian company won a 2014 Supreme Court case – the same year they initially raised their minimum wage – that granted them the right to deny their female employees insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Also, Hobby Lobby settled a federal complaint in 2017 that accused them of purchasing upwards of 5,000 looted ancient Iraqi artifacts, smuggled through the United Arab Emirates and Israel – which is simultaneously strange, exploitative, and highly controversial.
Why does this all matter? While raising their minimum wage to $17 should be regarded as a step in the right direction regarding the overall treatment of employees (and, hopefully, $17 becomes the new standard), Hobby Lobby is not without reason to seek favorable public opinion, especially during a pandemic. Yes, we should be quick to condone the action of increasing minimum wage, but perhaps be a little skeptical when deeming a company “good” or “bad”.
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
The actual reasons people choose to work at startups
Business Entrepreneur2 weeks ago
Small businesses must go digital to survive (and thrive)
Business Finance1 week ago
Small business owners furious over more PPP fraud this week
Business News1 week ago
Hobby Lobby increases minimum wage, but how much is just to save face?
Business News2 weeks ago
RIP office culture: How work from home is destroying the economy
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
How a simple period in your text message might be misinterpreted: Tips to improve your virtual communication
Business Marketing2 weeks ago
Bite-sized retail: Macy’s plans to move out of malls
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
How Peloton has developed a cult-following