Category: google

  • Tech behemoth Google is the first founding partner of Australia’s new CSIRO-run National Artificial Intelligence Centre, with the two organisations set to share skills in a bid to build an economy-wide network around “AI for humans”. Announced Tuesday by CSIRO boss Larry Marshall and Google ANZ managing director Melanie Silva, the new partnership will deepen…

    The post Google made founding partner of CSIRO’s National AI Centre appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • New York, March 4, 2022 – Russian authorities should allow all local and international media outlets and social media platforms to operate freely, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.

    Russian state media regulator Roskomnadzor on Friday, March 4, blocked access to several news websites, including those of BBC Russian, German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, Latvia-based independent news site Meduza, the Russian-language service of U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Voice of America (VOA), and several services of the U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), according to news reports.

    Also Friday, the Russian legislature adopted amendments to the criminal code introducing higher penalties, such as fines, criminal liabilities, and imposing prison terms of up to 15 years for those convicted of disseminating “fakes,” or information that authorities deem to be false, about military operations, or discrediting Russian Armed Forces, according to media reports. Putin signed the amendments today, according to reports, meaning the bill goes into effect tomorrow.

    “Russian authorities have moved quickly to establish total censorship and control over the free flow of information since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “The Russian public cannot be deprived of information and news and be forced to rely on the Kremlin-approved interpretation of events at this very important time in Russian history. The censorship must stop, and bans must be lifted.”  

    Among other developments on Friday:

    • Liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy closed all its social media accounts down following the station’s closure on Thursday, media reported.
    • Independent Russian media outlet Znak and online broadcaster TV 2 in Tomsk city both closed due to an increased number of restrictions from the Russian government, according to media reports
    • RFE/RL said in a statement the websites of its RussianTatar-Bashkir, and North Caucasus services, including the Russian-language Sever.RealiiSibir.RealiiIdel.Realii, and Kavkaz.Realii were blocked.
    • Liberal news website The Village announced on its Telegram channel that it has closed its Moscow office and that the editorial staff had started working from Warsaw, Poland’s capital. Two days earlier, on March 2, Roskomnadzor had blocked the publication’s website, according to reports.
    • Independent news website computing.co.uk reported that the Apple app and Google app stores are blocked in Russia, and Roskomnadzor confirmed in a statement and on their platform that Facebook and Twitter are blocked. 

    On February 24, Roskomnadzor said in a statement that all media “must only use information and data received from official Russian sources.”


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A review has been launched into the Big Tech media bargaining code, before the federal government has formally activated it. The News Media Bargaining Code came into effect in early March last year, requiring designated tech firms to enter into forced arbitration with Australia media companies to determine revenue-sharing deals for the use of their…

    The post Big Tech media bargaining code review begins before govt activates it appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • ABC’s 3 million iview users will need to have a user account by mid-March to continue watching as part of the public broadcaster’s “personalisation” push. The accounts track user viewing habits and shares the data with Google and Facebook by default, angering privacy advocates. Privacy and accessibility concerns led to the ABC pushing back the…

    The post ABC iview account required from March despite privacy warnings appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • ANALYSIS: By Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne; Alexandra Wake, RMIT University, and Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University

    News Corp Australia and Google have announced the creation of the Digital News Academy in partnership with the Melbourne Business School at the University of Melbourne. It will provide digital skills training for News Corp journalists and other media outlets.

    Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

    The academy won’t provide full degrees, just certificates and a chance to upgrade digital skills in a fast-changing media environment.

    Many companies in various industries have partnered with universities to deliver what used to be in-house training programmes. Strengthening the links between industry and the academy has been welcomed in many sectors and certainly encouraged by governments for many years.

    Why then are we as journalism academics concerned?

    There are several reasons. The first and most obvious is the incursion of a high-profile and controversial media company into the higher education sector and the extent to which that is funded by a large disruptive digital search company.

    Antagonism towards academia
    It is telling that the Digital News Academy will be housed in the University of Melbourne’s private arm, the Melbourne Business School, rather than its Centre for Advancing Journalism within the Arts faculty.

    Australia’s largest commercial media company has long criticised university journalism education, and journalism academics, including each of the authors of this article and many of our colleagues.

    The company even once sent an incognito reporter into a University of Sydney lecture to uncover criticism of News Corp in the classroom. That reporter, Sharri Markson, is now investigations editor at The Australian and a member of “the panel of experts” that will oversee the Digital News Academy.


    Source: Digital News Academy
    Source: Digital News Academy

    So it comes as no surprise that News Corp has avoided journalism programmes.

    News Corp Australasia’s executive chairman Michael Miller has said part of the academy’s role will be building a stronger Australia by keeping society informed through “strong and fearless news reporting and advocacy”.

    Yet partnering with a journalism programme would have facilitated that. It might also have helped assuage News Corp critics, some of whom have been active online during the week with reminders about News Corp’s unethical conduct during the hacking scandal and its disregard for scientific evidence in its reporting on climate change.

    University journalism courses teach ethics and critical thinking alongside practical skills such as new digital ways of fact checking, gathering information and telling stories.

    Google Australia already offers free tutorials to journalism programmes about smart ways to use its search engine to find and check investigative stories.

    University journalism programmes also distinguish between training and education; the former is predominantly about skills, the latter places those skills in context and teaches students how to think critically about the industry and environment in which they work.

    By placing this course in a business school and not a liberal arts or humanities faculty, the venture gets the kudos of the University of Melbourne’s backing without the challenging academic culture News Corp dislikes.

    News Corp and Google are corporate clients, paying the university for these courses, so the capacity for independent criticism of Australia’s most dominant newspaper company is eroded even further.

    The Digital News Academy will be within the Melbourne Business School, rather than the University of Melbourne's Centre for Advancing Journalism.
    The Digital News Academy will be housed within the Melbourne Business School, rather than the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock

    What will the Digital News Academy do?
    All we know so far about the academic credibility of the Digital News Academy comes from its promotional announcement, in press releases reported in the Media section of The Australian (published by News Corp).

    The publicity says the nine-month course will take 750 enrolments from journalists at News Corp Australia, Australian Community Media (the stable of 160 regional publications formerly owned by Fairfax) and smaller media partners.

    A “governance committee” will select candidates (who nominate themselves or are put forward by their employers). These students will be expected to use the Google suite of tools as they collaborate online at the Melbourne Business School, to generate, build and sell stories to the course’s “Virtual Academy Newsroom”.

    Each year there will be what is being billed as a major journalism conference and a US study tour for a select group of trainees.

    There are no public details yet of the academic credentials of the certificate programme but the academy has drawn on a “panel of experts”, almost all of whom come from inside News Corp and Google.

    Google gains influence
    It’s easy to see why Google was motivated to fund a News Corp training academy above and beyond what it is required to do as part of its bid to stop further intervention in its workings by the Australian government under the terms of the News Media Bargaining Code.

    But there are some deeper questions about why a company that has such a stranglehold on the new digital economy is involved. By funding the academy Google may be undercutting full university degrees specialising in journalism.

    Relying on Google to make up the shortfall in news organisations’ training budgets is a problem. It allows Google to shape curriculum while appearing to be a champion of the same journalism industry it has been accused of undermining.

    As journalism academics we respect the need for specialised training and skills development. But journalism programmes should never be captured or constrained from being critical of the industry for which they prepare students.

    They should continue to embed ethics in their courses. The aim, after all, is to improve journalism, for everybody’s benefit.

    As it is often said, news is not just another business. While studying journalism often involves the study of business, business imperatives should not drive the study of journalism itself.The Conversation

    Dr Andrew Dodd is director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne; Dr Alexandra Wake is programme manager, journalism, at RMIT University, and Dr Matthew Ricketson is professor of communication at Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    Dr Dodd has worked as a journalist at The Australian newspaper and has provided in-house legal and news writing training for News Corp. Dr Wake has provided in-house training for the ABC and for Australian Provincial Newspapers. She is the elected president of the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA). Professor Ricketson has worked on staff at The Australian, among other news outlets. He was a member of the Finkelstein inquiry into the media and media regulation which was sharply criticised in News Corp Australia publications. His appointment as the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s representative on the Press Council was also criticised by News Corp Australia. Full disclosures at The Conversation.

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Journalist Jonathan Cook has a new blog post out on his experience with being throttled into invisibility by Silicon Valley algorithmic suppression that will ring all too familiar for any online content creators who’ve been sufficiently critical of official western narratives over the last few years.

    “My blog posts once attracted tens of thousands of shares,” Cook writes. “Then, as the algorithms tightened, it became thousands. Now, as they throttle me further, shares can often be counted in the hundreds. ‘Going viral’ is a distant memory.”

    “I won’t be banned,” he adds. “I will fade incrementally, like a small star in the night sky – one among millions – gradually eclipsed as its neighbouring suns grow ever bigger and brighter. I will disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice.”

    Cook says this began after the 2016 US election, which was when a major narrative push began for Silicon Valley corporations to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms and soon saw tech executives brought before the US Senate and told that they must “quell information rebellions” and come up with a mission statement expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord” online.

    Arguably the most significant political moment in the United States since 9/11 and its immediate aftermath was when Democrats and their allied institutions concluded that Donald Trump’s election was a failure not of establishment politics but of establishment narrative control. From that point onwards, any online media creator who consistently disputes the narratives promoted by the same news outlets who’ve lied to us about every war has seen their view counts and new follows slashed.

    By mid-2017 independent media outlets were already reporting across ideological lines that algorithm changes from important sources of viewership like Google had suddenly begun hiding their content from people who were searching for the subjects they reported on.

    “In case anyone wants to know how Facebook suppression works – I have 330,000 followers there but they’ve stopped showing my posts to many people,” Redacted Tonight host Lee Camp tweeted in January 2018. “I used to gain 6,000 followers a week. I now gain 500 and FB unsubscribes people without their knowledge – so my total number never increases.”

    I saw my own shares and view counts rapidly diminish in 2017 as well, and saw my new Facebook page follows suddenly slow to a virtual standstill. It wasn’t until I started using mailing lists and giving indie media outlets blanket permission to republish all my content that I was able to grow my audience at all.

    And Silicon Valley did eventually admit that it was in fact actively censoring voices who fall outside the mainstream consensus. In order to disprove the false right-wing narrative that Google only censors rightist voices, the CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet admitted in 2020 to algorithmically throttling World Socialist Website. Last year the CEO of Google-owned YouTube acknowledged that the platform uses algorithms to elevate “authoritative sources” while suppressing “borderline content” not considered authoritative, which apparently even includes just marginally establishment-critical left-of-center voices like Kyle Kulinski. Facebook spokeswoman Lauren Svensson said in 2018 that if the platform’s fact-checkers (including the state-funded establishment narrative management firm Atlantic Council) rule that a Facebook user has been posting false news, moderators will “dramatically reduce the distribution of all of their Page-level or domain-level content on Facebook.”

    People make a big deal any time a controversial famous person gets removed from a major social media platform, and rightly so; we cannot allow such brazen acts of censorship to become normalized. The goal is to normalize internet censorship on every front, and the powerful will push for that normalization to be expanded at every opportunity. Whether you dislike the controversial figure being deplatformed on a given day is entirely irrelevant; it’s not about them, it’s about expanding and normalizing internet censorship protocols on monopolistic government-tied speech platforms.

    But far, far more consequential than overt censorship of individuals is censorship by algorithm. No individual being silenced does as much real-world damage to free expression and free thought as the way ideas and information which aren’t authorized by the powerful are being actively hidden from public view, while material which serves the interests of the powerful is the first thing they see in their search results. It ensures that public consciousness remains chained to the establishment narrative matrix.

    It doesn’t matter that you have free speech if nobody ever hears you speak. Even in the most overtly totalitarian regimes on earth you can say whatever you want alone in a soundproof room.

    That’s the biggest loophole the so-called free democracies of the western world have found in their quest to regulate online speech. By allowing these monopolistic megacorporations to become the sources everyone goes to for information (and even actively helping them along that path as in for example Google’s research grants from the CIA and NSA), it’s possible to tweak algorithms in such a way that dissident information exists online, but nobody ever sees it.

    You’ve probably noticed this if you’ve tried to search YouTube for videos which don’t align with the official narratives of western governments and media lately. That search function used to work like magic; like it was reading your mind. Now it’s almost impossible to find the information you’re looking for unless you’re trying to find out what the US State Department wants you to think. It’s the same with Google searches and Facebook, and because those giant platforms dictate what information gets seen by the general public, that wild information bias toward establishment narratives bleeds into other common areas of interaction like Twitter as well.

    The idea is to let most people freely share dissident ideas and information about empire, war, capitalism, authoritarianism and propaganda, but to make it increasingly difficult for them to get their content seen and heard by people, and to make their going viral altogether impossible. To avoid the loud controversies and uncomfortable public scrutiny brought on by acts of overt censorship as much as possible while silently sweeping unauthorized speech behind the curtain. To make noncompliant voices “disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice,” as Cook put it.

    The status quo is not working. Our ecosystem is dying, we appear to be rapidly approaching a high risk of direct military confrontations between nuclear-armed nations, and our world is rife with injustice, inequality, oppression and exploitation. None of this is going to change until the public begins awakening to the problems with the current status quo so we can begin organizing a mass-scale push toward healthier systems. And that’s never going to happen as long as information is locked down in the way that it is.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. And as more and more people get their information about what’s happening in the world from online sources, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation has already become one of the most consequential forms of narrative control.

    ____________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Large American technology firms want the Australian government to consolidate its various online safety laws into one Act, claiming a “slew of regulations” are creating overlap, inconsistency and confusion. The federal government has introduced several pieces of online safety legislation over the last three years, including the Online Safety Act, an anti-trolling bill, and laws…

    The post Big Tech says it is confused by Australia’s growing online safety laws appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • 3 Mins Read Google has revealed that searches for “vegan food near me” have dramatically increased in 2021. The term reach “breakthrough status”, meaning it increased by 5,000 percent or more. The finding was released as part of the annual “Year in Search” report, published by the search engine. Other pertinent figures contained in the report show that […]

    The post “Vegan Food Near Me” Reported By Google As A Breakthrough Search Term In 2021 After 5,000 Percent Spike appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • A very popular error: having the courage of one’s convictions; rather, it is a question of having the courage for an attack on one’s convictions!!!

    Friedrich Nietzsche,  Critique of Religion and Philosophy, Walter A. Kaufmann, 1958, page 34

    Is it necessary to say that this article is not about critical thinking and intellectual integrity (which Nietzsche, in a better moment, so eloquently described in the above-quotation)?  Rather, it is about the inverse–about people, tens-of-millions of people, who seldom, if ever, roamed the shelves of a public library in the quest for deeper, nuanced understanding of complex areas of knowledge.  It is about people of little or no intellectual curiosity–with pre-formed opinions (“prejudices”) — who seek confirmation not through evidence but through group-consensus.  It is about persons who might say, in all seriousness: “I’ll see it–when I believe it.”  It is about persons who, unwilling to engage in the responsible task of weighing and evaluating contrasting claims, prefer the regressive (and self–justifying) comfort of finding “like-minded” folks angry and upset about exactly the same kinds of “outrages” (often misreported or exaggerated).  Yes, exactly — because, thanks to the insidious application of algorithmic formulas, such persons can be found and linked-up almost instantly, from anywhere on the planet.

    They call it niche-marketing, advanced niche-marketing — though it is as far beyond old targeted junk-mail as genetic engineering is beyond bloodletting.  In short, to use Foucault’s phrase, at any given moment, any given Internet user is an entirely “calculable person” — her tastes and preferences, likes-and-dislikes, “visits” to sundry websites, precise consumer history…all tabulated with totalistic precision down to the last iota.  The (warped) raison-d-etre of all this?  To drown you with info-and-ads that will further stimulate you, thereby engaging and enraging you to be even more fixed-in-your-outlook — uniquely misinformed but at the same time virtually identical to fellow members of the consumer-niche.

    Let’s say you feel strongly that you are a “tri-sexual” (meaningless–but still, you feel that!).  You’re possibly confused–but instead of embarking on a sustained study of gender (and psychiatry?), you “google” various things and before you know it… wonderful algorithms are flooding you with info and contacts, other self-described tri-sexuals are recounting their stories, and you now are embedded in a subculture — a mutually-supportive group which, to the Silicon marketeers selling all this precise data, now makes you a precise-target (i.e., within a precisely-defined niche-market – at least insofar as certain entertainment products, “dating,” “lifestyle” habits, elective “surgery,” travel, etc., are concerned).

    All levity aside, let’s choose another random example.  You feel that there is something sinister about Hillary Clinton.  Not that she has routinely accepted six-figure speaking fees – a practice former president Jimmy Carter once called “legalized bribery” — nor that she spearheaded the NATO destruction of Libya.  You don’t know anything about all that (and are just not interested).  You sense other things–maybe that “she wears the pants” in a dysfunctional marriage, in which poor Bill could only reclaim his god-given “manhood” by engaging in wanton adultery (and other sins).  The woman is dangerous, positively un-Christian, devilish!  That’s what you feel–and no power on earth is gonna force you to recant your precious beliefs!  But how to find confirmation of these strong, heartfelt suspicions?  Well, you could go to the public library and read various books about the woman and her career, books pro as well as con, books evaluating the specific episodes of her career.  But why bother?  Just “google” a few keywords — and you get precisely the info you’re seeking.  QAnon, satan-worship, rumors of a child molesting cult–it’s all there!–and delivered painlessly (and relentlessly) to your “inquiring mind” (to use the phrase once flattering to the readers of the tabloid National Enquirer).  Within hours, you have dozens of posts (and ads!) confirming everything you suspected!  What’s more, you’re no longer alone, but part of a shared subculture (read: niche-market — for Fox News, talk-radio, weapons, travel to “protests,” “political” donations, and more). 

    Psychiatrists have often described the sad situation of a couple, totally isolated from outside viewpoints and contrasting lifestyles, who share mutually-reinforcing delusions (folie-a-deux).  Entirely out-of-touch with any broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding, such insular couples resemble cults.  It seems a tragic setback for human advancement that, with the dominance of Facebook and other algorithm-empowered marketing networks, the once-vaunted “information superhighway” has devolved into a sectarian, prejudice-magnifying, misinformation nightmare.  And all for one-and-only purpose: to precisely identify members of each niche-market, thereby seamlessly matching the exact people for the exact consumer-product involved.  Then, build up the “shared identity” — i.e., “sameness” of attitude, opinions, lifestyles — at the expense of promoting the humanistic ideals of critical thinking, evolving personal enlightenment, and well-informed, democratic citizenship.

    The post “Niche Marketing” (or The Algorithm of Closed Minds) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Australia’s national science agency has scored a five-year, multi-million dollar partnership with Google to work on national missions around clean energy and artificial intelligence. The partnership is a key element of Google’s $1 billion Digital Future Initiative, revealed on Tuesday morning, and will see the tech giant and CSIRO partnering to solve local and global…

    The post CSIRO inks multi-million dollar deal with Google on clean energy, AI appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The Prime Minister has used the G20 CEO Summit 2021 in Auckland to ratchet-up the temperature of demands on Big Tech to come up with satisfactory industry codes for a co-regulatory environment that will meet government expectations across a full-range of flash-point issues. If the tech giants don’t come up with suitable codes to underpin…

    The post Election footing as PM lashes Big Tech on regulation appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Australia’s competition regulator wants new powers to stop Google from being the default search service on nearly every phone and computer in the country, warning the tech giant’s 94 per cent market share is stifling competition and innovation. Following an inquiry into the local search market, the regulator has recommended it be given the power…

    The post ACCC targeting Google’s $20b Apple search deal appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The federal government has unveiled “landmark privacy legislation” which will increase penalties for breaches of privacy by social media firms and require a wide range of tech firms to verify the age of their users and obtain parental consent for users aged under 16. Many elements of the draft legislation, unveiled by Attorney-General Michaelia Cash…

    The post Age verification will be mandatory for social under govt tech crackdown appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The best-selling Irish novelist Sally Rooney is openly shunning Israel after recent reports from human rights groups warned that Israel practices apartheid, systematically oppressing Palestinians under its rule.

    But while Israel risks becoming a pariah among some cultural producers, it is being aggressively embraced by globe-spanning corporations like Amazon and Google – among the wealthiest companies in history.

    The two tech giants are not just lining up to do business with Israel. They are actively working to build and improve the technological infrastructure Israel needs to surveil Palestinians and confine them to the ghettos Israel’s army has created for them.

    Through their collaboration on Israel’s Project Nimbus, both companies are helping to remove any pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and are instead becoming partners in Israeli apartheid.

    Now workers for both companies are speaking out – most of them anonymously for fear of what they call “retaliation.”

    This month some 400 employees of the two companies published a letter in The Guardian newspaper warning that Amazon and Google were contracted to supply “dangerous technology” to the Israeli military and government that would make Israel’s rule over Palestinians “even crueler and deadlier.”

    Under wraps

    The $1.2 billion contract for Project Nimbus awarded earlier this year means the two tech firms are to build data centers in Israel on behalf of the Israeli military and government.

    Senior staff will need Israeli security clearance to work on the project.

    In a sign of how aware Israel is of the potential backlash against Amazon and Google’s involvement, the contract bars the tech corporations from withdrawing due to pressure from either employees or the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The terms of the contracts are also being kept under wraps to prevent scrutiny.

    The tech giants’ wish to avoid publicity is understandable. Each pays lip service to ethical business practices. Google claims that firms “can make money without doing evil,” while Amazon’s “leadership principles” state a commitment to “make better, do better and be better.”

    Providing Israel with the technological tools to better enforce both its belligerent military occupation and its apartheid policies privileging Jews over Palestinians looks suspiciously like making a lot of money from colluding with evil.

    In the words of the whistleblowing staff, Amazon and Google’s collaboration allows “further surveillance of and unlawful data collection on Palestinians, and facilitates expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land.”

    Neither Amazon nor Google responded to a request for comment on the concerns raised in the letter.

    Enforce occupation

    Two employees, Gabriel Schubiner, a software engineer at Google, and Bathool Syed, a content strategist at Amazon, went public on NBC’s website shortly after publication of the letter in The Guardian.

    They gave examples of how Israel would be able to use Amazon and Google’s computer services to help enforce the occupation. Data would be used to identify Palestinian homes for demolition, in what are often moves towards land clearances by Israel to build or expand illegal settlements.

    And the information collected and stored on the servers would guide attacks on built-up areas in Gaza, which Israel has been blockading for the past 15 years. In previous military campaigns, Israel has bombed Palestinian hospitals, schools and universities.

    Amazon and Google’s servers will also assist Israel’s Iron Dome missile interception system, which has helped Israel neutralize rockets from Gaza so that it can maintain an enforced quiet from Palestinians as it keeps them caged and imposes a starvation diet for the enclave’s inhabitants.

    The two employees also noted that Amazon and Google will be directly implicated in Israel’s wider apartheid policies of the kind criticized earlier in the year by human rights groups, including the Israeli occupation watchdog B’Tselem.

    Nimbus will serve the Israel Lands Authority, which not only allocates lands for illegal settlements but oversees discriminatory policies in land allocation inside Israel that openly privilege Jews over the fifth of the Israeli population who are Palestinian natives.

    Israel claims these so-called Israeli Arabs are equal citizens but they suffer systematic discrimination, as B’Tselem and the New York-based Human Rights Watch have highlighted.

    “Data crossroads”

    Amazon and Google have ignored previous calls from staff to prioritize Palestinian rights over increased profits from colluding in Israel’s war economy.

    In May many hundreds – again anonymously – urged both companies to sever their ties to the Israeli military shortly after it killed almost 260 Palestinians, including more than 60 children, in an attack on besieged Gaza.

    Figures published this month demonstrated Israel’s central place in the global digital economy. Despite its tiny size, Israel’s share of hi-tech investments now amounts to a third of those made in European countries.

    Israel has particularly benefited from the growing demand in the West for its surveillance technologies, cyber weapons and developments in militarized artificial intelligence. The Israeli military and offshoot startups launched by retired soldiers have a competitive edge, claiming that their technologies have been “battle proven” on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

    According to reports in local media, Israel is poised to become a “global data crossroads.” In addition to Amazon and Google, Microsoft, Oracle and IBM are all expected to build server farms in Israel to cash in on the greater integration of digital and military technologies.

    The critical role of Israel in hi-tech – from its Intel chip plant to firms like AnyVision and Onavo that offer specialist surveillance, facial recognition and data-mining technologies – means no one can afford to fall out with Israel.

    Google and Facebook have already faced criticisms for their work with Israel censoring Palestinians on social media or making them invisible on online maps.

    Profits galore

    The anonymous staff signing the letter to Amazon and Google sound nostalgic for the days when, they write, the technology they built was designed “to serve and uplift people everywhere.”

    But the reality is that tech firms like Amazon and Google have long moved past simple online services such as helping us to buy a book or search for a recipe. The drive for profits, the need to keep competitors at bay and an incentive to avoid state regulation mean they have become key players assisting the “national security state.”

    As well as its notorious union-busting initiatives, Amazon has increased the surveillance powers of US state and local police forces and of immigration services that have been harshly criticized for separating asylum-seeking families at the US-Mexico border.

    From early on, Google partnered with, or received money from, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon and the US State Department.

    The 400 or so anonymous employees still hope they can replicate previous victories that ended the tech corporations’ complicity in oppression and military aggression.

    In 2019 Google pulled out of Project Dragonfly, intended to help China censor its population’s online searches. And the year before it ditched Project Maven to assist the Pentagon with drone assassinations.

    But China was an official enemy, and the Pentagon is still pressing ahead with the drone project, reportedly aided by firms backed by investment funds owned by Google parent Alphabet and a startup tied to a former Google executive, among others, to do the work Google itself had to abandon.

    Getting either Amazon or Google to honor their public commitments to ethical behavior by withdrawing from Project Nimbus may prove much harder – and not only because of the contractual obligations Israel has insisted on.

    Israel has become too integral to the global surveillance and war industries for any tech giant to risk antagonizing it. With profits galore to be derived from closer collaboration with the military industrial complex, the pressure will be on to forge closer bonds with Israel, whatever its human rights record.

    And with the Israel lobby deeply ensconced in Western capitals, the tech corporations will not wish to risk the reputational damage of being tarred as anti-Semitic for boycotting Israel.

    Pressure may be mounting on many companies to distance themselves from Israel over its occupation and apartheid policies. But for Amazon and Google it is those very practices of occupation and apartheid that are a tech seam waiting to be mined.

    • First published in The Electronic Intifada

    The post Amazon and Google: Partners in Israeli Apartheid first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The best-selling Irish novelist Sally Rooney is openly shunning Israel after recent reports from human rights groups warned that Israel practices apartheid, systematically oppressing Palestinians under its rule. But while Israel risks becoming a pariah among some cultural producers, it is being aggressively embraced by globe-spanning corporations like Amazon and Google – among the wealthiest companies in history.

    The post Amazon And Google: Partners In Israeli Apartheid appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Google and Amazon workers have published a public letter calling on the two companies to cancel Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion contract for cloud computing services for the Israeli military and government. We know that the Israeli military apparatus will use these services to build weapons and surveillance technology to use against the Palestinian people. Such technology, once tested on Palestinians, is frequently exported back to the United States to be used against marginalized populations and protesters here.

    The post Workers At Amazon And Google Condemn “Project Nimbus” Contract With Israeli Military appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The latest effort by social media giants to combat misinformation on their platforms has been slammed by multiple organisations as a “total farce” and “woefully inadequate”, as federal government rhetoric about further regulatory crackdowns escalates. The Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI), a group whose members include Facebook, Apple, Twitter and Google, announced on Monday morning…

    The post Big Tech misinformation efforts slammed as ‘woefully inadequate’ appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The federal government’s online safety reforms will lead to “widespread cybersecurity risks” comparable to the infamous Ashley Maddison data leak and may see “the work of one arm of government undoing the work of another”, according to a number of leading global tech firms. In submissions to the Department of Home Affairs’ consultation on strengthening…

    The post Big Tech warns of Australian online safety reforms’ cybersecurity risks appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Australia’s competition regulator has called for new laws and sector-specific rules to address “ineffective” competition in the multibillion-dollar advertising technology sector, warning an entrenched Google is preferencing its own services and shielding them from competition. A landmark report into the notoriously opaque and concentrated advertising technology (ad tech) supply chain was released by the Australian…

    The post Google dominance chilling ad tech competition, driving up fees: ACCC appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Opinion: A final report into the notoriously murky and concentrated digital advertising market should now be sitting on the Treasurer’s desk.

    The report, which was due by August 31, contains how the competition and consumer regulator wants to clean up the multibillion-dollar supply chain, which could set up a fresh face-off between the Australian government and Google.

    Google Dara
    Under the spotlight: Google. Credit: Sundry Photography / Shutterstock

    The digital advertising behemoth and search engine giant is firmly in the sights of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and its Chair Rod Sims, who over an 18-month inquiry repeatedly singled out Google for its dominance and vertical integration in the advertising technology market, commonly known in the industry as the “adtech” market.

    Adtech is the digital infrastructure that allows the near-instantaneous delivery of $3.4 billion of digital ads in Australia each year.

    Its efficiency and role in keeping content “free” varies on who you ask, with the supply chain filled with “middlemen” who take a share of every advertising dollar for their various adtech services.

    Studies have shown around half the money advertisers spend never reaches publishers and about one-third of the programmatic supply chain cost is “unattributable”.

    The ACCC is trying to clean it up in Australia and is focusing on the biggest adtech player of all: Google.

    The regulator estimates the tech giant’s share of the revenue or ads traded in each of the key adtech services in Australia ranges from 50-60 per cent to between 90-100 per cent, depending on the service.

    Along with its troves of data, it means the US behemoth has the “ability and the incentive” to preference its own adtech businesses in ways that affect competition, according to Mr Sims, who won’t be relying on Google to resolve conflicts of interest itself.

    Nor should he. Google parent Alphabet now rakes in more than US$147 billion (AUD200 billion) a year through its ad business. It did not get there by helping its competition and it would be foolish to not at least shine a light on the otherwise opaque adtech world.

    Based on previous tough talk, Mr Sims will have an ally in Treasure Josh Frydenberg, who has declared the Australian government is more than happy to lead a push back against the encroachment of “Silicon Valley”, albeit with questionable results so far.

    Google, of course, won’t go quietly and has already warned that the real losers of any breakup of its vertical adtech integration and market dominance will be publishers, advertisers and, ultimately, the consumer.

    The size of the Australian market also means another threat by Google to switch off services for local users would be at least credible, although much less likely than the headline-grabbing warning it would block local news last year (which it did as part of “experiments”).

    Interventions will need to be well-thought through given the reliance of Australian advertisers and publishers on adtech, much of it Google’s, which does help keep paywalls down.

    The report, including exactly what the ACCC is proposing, is expected to be released in September. But the regulator has previously shown, in its January interim report, that it is leaning towards intervention or at least a more watchful role in any industry-led initiatives.

    In its interim report, the ACCC suggested rules to manage conflicts of interest and to prevent self-preferencing in the supply of adtech services, along with mechanisms to improve adtech transparency and data interoperability and portability.

    The regulator also suggested a potential forced breakup of datasets held by “large incumbents”, to make it easier for rival adtech providers to enter and compete in the supply of services.

    In response, Google argued the regulator had presented an “incomplete picture” of the digital advertising industry and downplayed its dominance by arguing it competes with a wide range of adtech players and other digital advertising options like Facebook, as well as other forms of media.

    A flurry of supplementary submissions by Google in July also sought to address criticisms and ensure any changes are in line with global developments as regulators everywhere seek to reign in tech giants.

    Big Tech companies including Google have enjoyed a huge head start on regulators, initially arguing against any oversight and more recently trying to ensure the “right” regulation.

    Adtech may not grab the public’s attention in the same way the News Media Bargaining Code did but is potentially no less important.

    It all makes for tough work for Mr Sims and the ACCC.

    The post Google faces showdown with government over ads appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The federal government will release draft legislation within weeks to further crackdown on social media firms, with a focus on improving transparency around the handling of user data.

    Representatives from the Attorney-General’s Department fronted a senate inquiry into foreign interference through social media on Friday afternoon and revealed that despite an inquiry into the Privacy Act still ongoing, draft legislation will soon be unveiled centred on improving transparency around the use of data by these tech giants.

    The legislation, which will soon be released for public discussion, will also change the way that consent is obtained around the use of data by these social media firms.

    “We are separately working on exposure draft legislation that will specifically target social media companies and certain other online platforms with similar themes in terms of ensuring that there’s greater transparency about how personal information is being used, and how consent is obtained, particularly for young people,” assistant director of the Attorney-General’s Department’s information law branch Julia Galluccio told the senators.

    “We’re in the process of finalising that legislation at the moment, and that will be released for public discussion as well.”

    Facebook
    Facebook is facing more regulation in Australia

    Issues around a lack of transparency on how user data is being hoovered up and used by the tech giants, and the use of blanket consent notices, were key themes from the ongoing consultation on reforms to the Privacy Act.

    “The submissions have raised concerns about the ability of individuals to really understand how their personal information is being used and disclosed, and about the control that they can have over their personal information,” Ms Galluccio said.

    “One theme that’s come through is that more work could be done to simplify collection notice requirements to provide greater transparency for individuals about the purpose for which their data is being collected.

    “In addition, another theme is that entities should be required to provide greater transparency through their privacy policies so that there’s better information about how their personal information is being used and, in particular, if it’s being used or disclosed for the purpose of influencing an individual’s behaviour or decisions.”

    The Privacy Act currently relies heavily on a notice and consent model, Ms Galluccio told the hearing, but the submissions highlighted a number of limitations with this, and the draft legislation will look to address these.

    “Some submissions have suggested that perhaps there should be some situations where, even if the individual does consent to the use of information, that information still shouldn’t be collected, used or disclosed, and there should be some kind of notion of fairness and reasonableness in the circumstances to be able to collect, use and disclose that information,” she said.

    Ms Galluccio said the draft legislation will be released for public consultation in the coming weeks.

    The Privacy Act review was launched in late 2019 following the competition watchdog’s inquiry in the digital platforms. Submissions were due on its first issues paper by late last year, with a discussion paper expected to follow.

    But this has still not been produced, with the review delayed ahead of further consultation later this year.

    The Coalition’s promised new penalty scheme for data breaches, announced well over two years ago, also hasn’t been launched, with draft legislation still yet to be released.

    It also comes after the federal government passed the news media bargaining code earlier this year, which put it in a very public spat with Facebook and Google, and even led to Facebook briefly blocking all news content for Australian users.

    The post Govt looks to new social media crackdown appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Free speech, like any freedom struggle, is about power.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • The Australian competition regulator is eagerly watching on as Google faces another significant antitrust lawsuit in the US, with more than 35 states taking on the tech giant over its app store practices.

    US states including New York, California, Colorado and Massachusetts this week filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google alleging the company is abusing its dominance in the smartphone market to unfairly favour its own Google Play Store.

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is also zeroing in on this issue, releasing an interim report on Google and Facebook’s app stores earlier this year.

    The regulator is watching on with interest as the US continues the legal fight against Big Tech.

    Google Dara
    More than 35 US states have joined another lawsuit against Google. Photo: Sundry Photography / Shutterstock

    “The ACCC will continue to explore issues and developments in app marketplaces during the course of the five-year inquiry, including steps taken by digital platforms to address the concerns identified in its report,” an ACCC spokesperson told InnovationAus.

    “Accordingly, the ACCC will continue to engage with our international counterparts and monitor events in other jurisdictions”

    More than 35 US states are participating in the antitrust lawsuit against Google over the way it operates its app store, the Google Play Store. Google is also facing another antitrust suit in the US over its search engine business.

    The latest court action is alleging that Google has unlawfully favouried its own app store to reduce competition, and is also targeting the fees that the tech giant charges developers for in-app purchases.

    The filing claims that Google has a monopoly over Android app distribution, and has used restrictive contracts to make sure that developers promote the Google app store over others.

    The antitrust suit also alleges that Google made a “direct attempt to pay Samsung to abandon relationships with top developers” to ensure its own app store remained more attractive.

    It also alleged that Google’s commission of up to 30 per cent from in-app purchases is “extravagant”.

    “Google is using its dominant position in the marketplace to stifle competition and extract billions of dollars in commissions on in-app purchases from unsuspecting consumers – and this anti-competitive behaviour must stop,” District of Columbia Attorney-General Karl Racine said in a statement.

    “Not only has Google acted unlawfully to block potential rivals from competing with its Google Play Store, it has profited by improperly locking app developers and consumers into its own payment processing system and then charging high fees.”

    In April the ACCC released an interim report from its investigation into the app stores of Google and Apple, finding there are “significant issues which warrant attention”.

    In the report, the ACCC called on the tech giants to fix up their app stores and allow competition or face government regulation.

    The ACCC said there needs to be more transparency around how apps are promoted on the stores, the ability for consumers to change and remove preinstalled or default apps, and the removal of payment systems which exclude competitors.

    “There is a window of opportunity for Apple and Google themselves to take steps to improve outcomes for app developers and consumers by adopting the potential measures we have identified,” ACCC chair Rod Sims said in the report.

    “The ACCC will also take into account significant proposals and law changes in other countries which have identified similar concerns. Regulation may be required if Apple and Google fail to take steps to address the concerns identified.”

    In a one-on-one interview with InnovationAus this month, Mr Sims said that the ACCC’s landmark digital platforms inquiry helped give Australia a seat at the table of the global fight to reign in big tech.

    “We’re much more in contact with our international colleagues. We’d always been in contact with them on so many antitrust issues, but the report has played us into being a bit of a central player with others with what’s going on around the world,” Mr Sims told InnovationAus.

    “We’ve linked in to our international colleagues in an amazing way. We’re sharing ideas with each other, we’re learning off each other and that’s the broad response that you need to take.”

    The post Aussies watch as US targets Google, again appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • When Australia’s competition watchdog released its landmark report into digital platforms two years ago, it surprised some by not calling for the big tech firms to be broken up.

    While other jurisdictions have been gearing up for significant legal battles to split up some of the core business operations of the likes of Facebook and Google, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) deliberately didn’t go down this path.

    ACCC chair Rod Sims said this was in part to ensure that more achievable, short-term recommendations weren’t overlooked in favour of the attention-grabbing moves to break up the tech titans.

    “Our digital platforms report didn’t recommend that as a key way forward, just because it takes time, you don’t know where it’s going to end up and we figured that if all the focus was on that, we’d rather have the focus on trying to solve the problems,” Mr Sims told InnovationAus.

    ACCC chair Rod Sims

    Late last year the US Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint asking for Facebook to be required to sell Instagram and WhatsApp as part of an antitrust lawsuit.

    Last week, the Judge called on the FTC to submit a new complaint, saying the previous one did not properly establish Facebook’s market dominance and that metrics such as the amount users spend on apps or an explanation of the social media giant’s competition could be used.

    The FTC is expected to file a new complaint against Facebook. The Attorney-Generals of more than 30 US states have also taken action against Google in an antitrust lawsuit alleging the company is illegally protecting a monopoly over its search engine business.

    There are also significant movements in Europe to break up these tech companies, with the European Commission late last year unveiling new laws to diminish the market power of these firms.

    The ACCC is leading Australia’s charge in the fight against big tech, and while the commission is watching the developments in the US with interest, it won’t be influencing its efforts to tackle the market dominance of these companies, Mr Sims said.

    “The break-up case of the FTC against Facebook is not something that’s ever been central to the way we saw things developing. If that case doesn’t go ahead, that’s not an obstacle to the road we’re driving down, and most others are driving down,” Mr Sims said.

    “It’s an interesting thing off to the side, but it’s not central to dealing with the problems of the market power of the platforms. We’re trying to deal with them more directly. It’s fascinating to watch it but in terms of the journey we’re on, we don’t regard that as a setback.

    “We’re talking about years down the track even if it is successful, and we haven’t factored that into the path we’re on. It probably would be a bit of a plus if it happened, but it’s not something anyone is counting on.”

    Australia’s approach to compete the power of the big tech firms is more centred around a combination of tighter regulation and reactive competition measures, Mr Sims said.

    “We think there does need to be some upfront regulation, but we also think there are big steps we can take to introduce competition,” he said.

    “We’re wrestling with that combination of how much before the event regulation versus after the event competition or consumer law enforcement. Then you have to wrestle with the whole data issue.”

    Australia has several advantages in taking on these issues thanks to its size, the competition tsar said.

    “It’s probably a lot easier for us to move and get things done, being a small country. We can link in pretty well with all the players, and we’re a central player in the network of competition regulators that exists,” Mr Sims said.

    “We play one of the two coordinating roles of that international competition network. That means we’re already well placed to disseminate things and get in the middle of things. Also the size of the country means it’s so much easier to get things done in Australia than it is in the US where there are so many hurdles to doing things. We can move a lot faster here which is good.”

    The ACCC has a number of open inquiries and areas of investigation for further crackdowns against the big tech firms. It is close to finishing a report into adtech and also has choice screens in its crosshairs.

    “All of that is being dealt with and certainly from our point of view we will have a lot more to say in September when our adtech report is released, and in October when the choice screens report is released,” Mr Sims said.

    “And we’ll be following that up with broader announcements in 2022.”

    The post Rod Sims on the global fight with Big Tech appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Tech giants have warned the Australian government’s proposed legislation allowing it to step in and take control of a company during a cyber-attack is poorly defined and if used would be of no help to larger companies, and could even make incidents worse.

    Representatives from Google, Amazon and Atlassian on Thursday said there is no realistic situation where software provided by security agencies like the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) or the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) during government assistance to a cyber attack on critical infrastructure would be any more useful than their own defences.

    The warnings came in evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s proposed Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020. The legislation would impose a new positive security obligation for a range of businesses deemed to be operators of critical infrastructure, including data storage and processing firms.

    The new powers would also allow the government to take control of companies deemed operators of “national security businesses” in the event of a cyber-attack, including compelling them to install government software on their networks.

    Help not required: Big Tech says its own cyber defences are more robust than anything Australian security agencies might compel them to install

    The bill has been criticised across industry for unworkable reporting times, the introduction of unprecedented compulsive powers, and a lack of defined rules, which the government intends to establish with regulations.

    Stakeholders did however widely acknowledge the need for a coordinated response to protecting critical infrastructure from cyber threats.

    At the latest public hearing on the legislation, Google threat analysis group director Shane Huntley said the bill would allow for security and cyber agencies to install their own software on the tech giant’s systems.

    Mr Huntley, who previously held a senior technical role within the ASD, told the inquiry anything the government agencies did install would not be able to “match” Google’s own more “robust” cyber tools.

    “The best way, and really the only feasible way, to do the sort of monitoring [needed] would be with our own systems and our own tools,” Mr Huntley told the inquiry.

    “So, I really can’t imagine a situation where there is some software from ACSC or ASD which we’re installing on our systems would even work, let alone be safe. What would be useful is [agencies] actually giving us threat information.”

    Mr Huntley said Google already shares and receives information with Australian security agencies on cyber threats, and a more useful defence for critical infrastructure would be to expand on that relationship and leverage it during cyber-attacks.

    “But from a practical point of view, there is no way that software from their behalf is going to work,” he said.

    “What we need is information and collaboration because the only real software that’s safe to operate in a sort of Google or hyperscale cloud environment is our software and our systems that have been tested and vetted. And I don’t think there is a gap that can be filled by the government here.”

    Atlassian director of global policy David Masters said he could not envision a scenario where the government’s assistance with software would help the company’s response to a cyber incident, but some of the Atlassian’s own customers might benefit.

    “There isn’t a scenario that I can see where we would need to reach out to the Australian Cybersecurity Centre for assistance on our network,” Mr Masters said.

    Amazon Web Services ANZ head of public policy to Roger Somerville told the inquiry the cloud market leader still knows “very little” about the type of software it may be required to install on its own network under the proposed powers.

    “That really goes to the heart of why we’ve been saying ‘this is how all of these unintended negative consequences can flow from this [legislation]’,” Mr Somerville said.

    “We just don’t understand, really, how the government, given all of the complexity of the various [critical infrastructure] assets could reasonably believe that such powers could be exercised quickly, operate effectively and still achieve the government’s claims.”

    AUCloud managing director Phil Dawson said government assistance may be useful in a situation where a retaliatory cyber-attack was warranted, because companies are limited to defence while government agencies can launch their own attacks.

    “As companies, we’re in the process of defending. So there may be an insight under some circumstances where some government were able to bring something to one of us [companies] that was under attack, or one of our customers were… But that’s a hypothetical difference between what governments can do and companies can do,” Mr Dawson said.

    The post Big Tech balks at critical infrastructure bill appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Two years ago, competition tsar Rod Sims handed his landmark final report on digital platforms to the federal government.

    But it was a decision 18 months earlier which laid the groundwork for the success of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) inquiry into the market power of Facebook and Google, Mr Sims said, and placed Australia at the forefront of the global battle to curtail the power of Big Tech and which gave the ACCC a seat at the global table on these discussions.

    While the thrust of the inquiry had been to address the impact of the market power of Facebook and Google on news and media companies, the broad terms of reference finalised by the federal government in late 2019 paved the way for its success, the ACCC chair told InnovationAus.

    These terms of reference were extremely broad, with the ACCC directed to investigate the market power of large digital platforms in dealing with media companies, their impact on choice and the quality of news, their impact on media and advertising markets, the impact of information asymmetry between those involved, and longer-term trends on competition in media and advertising.

    Rod Sims
    ACCC chair Rod Sims

    This allowed the competition watchdog to look more widely at the huge market power of Facebook and Google, and call for a number of significant recommendations that looked far beyond the media world, Mr Sims said.

    “It was the broadest report on digital platforms that had been done to that point anywhere in the world, and that’s because we got that direction from government with very broad terms of reference,” he said.

    “That allowed us to take a look at a wider range of issues than others had looked at, all in one place. So it allowed us to just deal with so much. We were able to look at the data issues, the privacy issues, the AdTech, the apps and the market power issues in great detail.

    “We were fortunate to get that very broad inquiry which allowed us to really open up so many issues. People seeing them opened up in that broad way really had a big impact – we’ve come so far over the last couple of years.”

    The ACCC handed the final report to the government in July 2019. It included 23 recommendations for “significant, holistic reform” to curb the market dominance of Facebook and Google, including changes to competition law, consumer protection, media regulation, privacy laws and merger rules.

    Mr Sims said he is “extremely pleased” with the progress in the two years since the report was finalised, with several of its key recommendations now in train.

    On the back of the digital platforms inquiry, the government has launched a wide ranging review of the Privacy Act, ordered the creation of a series of codes of conduct for the digital platforms, put into force a media bargaining code and stumped up nearly $30 million for a new Digital Platforms Unit within the ACCC to continue the work.

    “We’ve had a pretty good hit rate, and there’s a long way to go. Virtually all the recommendations are being acted on, and a number of them are clearly being progressed in a very positive way,” Mr Sims said.

    “Anybody who thinks you could do it quickly doesn’t understand how economic reform occurs. Everything takes time, but the speed at which these issues are being dealt with I think is incredibly impressive.”

    Perhaps most crucially, the report has provided Australia with credibility on a world stage and given it more influence among other regulators, Mr Sims said.

    “We’re much more in contact with our international colleagues. We’d always been in contact with them on so many antitrust issues, but the report has played us into being a bit of a central player with others with what’s going on around the world,” he said.

    “We’ve linked in to our international colleagues in an amazing way. We’re sharing ideas with each other, we’re learning off each other and that’s the broad response that you need to take. Each jurisdiction has its own document it can point to, but I like to think our document really helped with a lot of other work.”

    By far the recommendation that has received the most attention, and generated the most controversy, from the inquiry has been the news media bargaining code, which forces Facebook and Google to enter into arbitration to determine revenue sharing deals for the use of news content.

    During the legislative process, both tech giants railed hard against the concept, with Facebook even moving to briefly ban all news content for Australian users. The bargaining code legislation was eventually passed by Parliament after a number of last minute amendments.

    While the code is now law, the government is yet to designate either Facebook or Google under it, meaning it is not properly in effect.

    But Mr Sims said the code is working even better than intended, with several media organisations already having secured lucrative deals with the tech giants.

    “It has exceeded our expectations. You’ve got deals now completed with all of the three categories of media companies,” Mr Sims said.

    “Virtually all media organisations are pretty happy with the deals they’ve got, and some are extremely happy. These are big amounts of money at the higher end of what we expected. That’s been good. I hear a lot of stories about extra journalists going to be hired, and extra property that’s going to be rented to accommodate that growth.”

    The report catapulted Mr Sims and the ACCC to the forefront of Australia’s prominent fight with big tech, making them the public face of this high-profile battle. Mr Sims said he is comfortable with this role, and he’s not out to make any friends.

    “We often find ourselves in a pretty upfront position that probably doesn’t win us many friends, but it’s the work we’ve got to do,” he said.

    “I think at the moment in a worldwide perspective we’re just one of a number of jurisdictions with these issues and we’re all working very closely together. That just goes with our territory.”

    And this work has only just begun, with the launch of the Digital Platforms Unit with long-term funding. The 27-person unit within the ACCC is currently looking at AdTech, apps and choice screens, and will be “crucial” to the competition watchdog’s longer term work in the space, Mr Sims said.

    “We’ve got a very full agenda of things that we’re trying to deal with,” he said.

    “Our next year in this area is going to be really exciting and hopefully will shape the way things go from here. I think the landscape is going to change enormously over the next one to three years.”

    The post Rod Sims on the platforms inquiry, two years on appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks to reporters in the Senate subway during a procedural vote on June 22, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has sent a letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) urging the agency to investigate Google for potentially engaging in anti-competitive practices by manipulating and exerting wide control over the online advertising market.

    In April, as part of another Texas antitrust case brought against the company, it was revealed that Google was running a covert operation to monitor online ad bids by other companies and using the information to bolster its own ad-buying program. “Project Bernanke,” which was not disclosed to bidders, evidently generated hundreds of millions of dollars a year for Google.

    The Justice Department is probing Google over that project and other potentially anti-competitive online practices around advertising. But Warren says in her letter that she believes the CFTC, which regulates commodities and the derivatives market in the U.S., should conduct a broader scrutiny of the company.

    “Today, the advertising market is functionally unregulated. It is a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and it is the main revenue driver for some of the country’s largest companies,” she writes. “The market for digital advertising has become perhaps the most actively traded commodity exchange in the world.”

    Though the market is largely unregulated, Warren writes, “The market is subject to private regulation, however, by the dominant player in the market — Google. Google exercises that regulatory power to benefit itself and to exploit other market participants, both large and small.”

    The senator then cites the 15 states and territories that are part of the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton following the original discovery of “Bernanke” to bolster her argument that Google exercises undue power over the online advertising market.

    “Imagine if the financial markets are controlled by one monopoly company, say Goldman Sachs, and that company then owns the [New York Stock Exchange], which is the largest financial exchange, that then trades on that exchange to advantage itself, eliminate competition, and charge a monopoly tax on billions of daily transactions,” the states and territories wrote. “That is the world of online display advertising today.”

    If these allegations are true, then they represent “deeply troublesome market manipulation” by Google, Warren says in her letter. The behavior is made especially concerning, Warren says, by the fact that the company doesn’t appear to be trying to hide their potentially anti-competitive practices.

    “Given the power of a company like Google to unilaterally manipulate the online advertising market, it is critical that the CFTC ensures these new digital commodities are traded fairly and without harmful manipulation,” Warren concluded.

    Online marketing is indeed largely unregulated, holding up a veil of secrecy to advertisers and their clients. This can cause undue harm, advocates have said for several years, to politics and the larger mission to fight disinformation online in general.

    Warren’s letter is a continuation of a push from Washington, D.C. and other state and local governments to try to rein in tech companies. D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine filed an antitrust lawsuit in May against Amazon for artificially inflating prices and the Federal Trade Commission recently lost an antitrust case against Facebook.

    Warren herself is also involved in several efforts to break up big tech companies. She has mounted an effort to break up huge companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Advocates argue, as Truthout’s Mike Ludwig reported last month, that the companies hold too much political and market power while largely going unregulated.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Google’s advertising technology is to be probed by EU investigators amid concerns the tech giant could be distorting competition. The European Commission said its latest antitrust investigation will focus on whether the firm has breached competition rules by favouring its own online display advertising technology services over rivals.

    Google’s use of data for advertising purposes on websites and apps will also be examined, to determine whether the company unfairly restricts competitor access to such data and reserves it for their own use.

    Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s commission’s competition chief and executive vice president for digital, said:

    Online advertising services are at the heart of how Google and publishers monetise their online services.

    Google collects data to be used for targeted advertising purposes, it sells advertising space and also acts as an online advertising intermediary.

    So Google is present at almost all levels of the supply chain for online display advertising.

    We are concerned that Google has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack.

    Other key areas within Google’s booming advertising business will also be looked at, including ads on YouTube, as well as the tech firm’s planned changes to third party cookies in the Chrome web browser, which many publishers rely on to generate income.

    The move follows a number of EU probes into Google’s market dominance in recent years.

    In March 2019, the EC issued a €1.49bn (£1.27 bn) fine to Google for imposing restrictive clauses in contracts with third-party websites, preventing rivals from placing their search adverts on these websites.

    A Google spokesperson responded:

    Thousands of European businesses use our advertising products to reach new customers and fund their websites every single day.

    They choose them because they’re competitive and effective.

    We will continue to engage constructively with the European Commission to answer their questions and demonstrate the benefits of our products to European businesses and consumers.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Israel’s caretaker prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, sought to shut down all use of the popular video-sharing app TikTok in Israel last month.

    The attempt to censor TikTok, details of which emerged last weekend, is one of a number of reported attempts by Israel to control social media content during last month’s military assault on the Gaza Strip.

    Netanyahu tried to impose the blackout as Israel faced an international social media outcry over its 11-day attack on Gaza, which killed more than 250 Palestinians, and the violent repression by Israeli police of Palestinian protests in occupied East Jerusalem and inside Israel.

    Government law officers are understood to have resisted the move.

    Benny Gantz, the defense minister, also lobbied senior officials at Facebook and TikTok to crack down on posts critical of Israel, labelling them incitement and support for terror.

    The tech giants responded by agreeing to act “quickly and effectively,” according to a statement from Gantz’s office.

    The revelations follow widespread reports last month that social media corporations regularly removed posts that referred to the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, where Israel recently stepped up moves to force out Palestinian families and replace them with Jewish settlers.

    Social media users and digital rights organizations also reported censorship of posts about the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem.

    Threats of expulsions in Sheikh Jarrah and an invasion by Israeli soldiers of al-Aqsa were the main triggers causing Hamas to fire rockets into Israel last month. Israel responded by destroying swaths of Gaza.

    Shadowy cyber unit

    Israel’s success in manipulating social media last month follows warnings from Israeli human rights groups about the longer-term threat of Israeli censorship faced by Palestinians.

    Adalah, a legal rights group in Israel, said a shadowy Israeli government “cyber unit” – which works hand in hand with tech giants like Facebook and Twitter – had been given “a blank check” to police social media and muzzle online dissent.

    Israel’s supreme court ruled in April that the cyber unit could continue its often secretive operations from inside the justice ministry, arguing that its work contributed to national security.

    Since 2016, the cyber unit has removed many tens – and more likely hundreds – of thousands of Palestinian social media posts in collaboration with global tech corporations.

    The posts are erased without any legal oversight and usually without notifying users, Adalah pointed out. In many cases, users’ accounts are suspended or removed entirely, or access to whole websites blocked.

    The vast bulk of those being silenced are Palestinians – either those under a belligerent Israeli occupation or those who live inside Israel with degraded citizenship.

    The cyber unit was established in late 2015, part of a raft of measures by Israel purportedly intended both to identify “terrorists” before they strike and to curb what Israel describes as “incitement”.

    Given the opaque nature of the process, it is impossible to know what content is being taken down, Rabea Eghbariah, one of the Adalah lawyers who filed a petition against the unit to Israel’s high court, told The Electronic Intifada.

    Examples in the Israeli media, however, suggest that Israel regularly targets posts critical of Israel’s belligerent occupation or express solidarity with Palestinians.

    The court petition to end the cyber unit’s work was filed in November 2019 by Adalah, which represents 1.8 million Palestinian citizens, a fifth of Israel’s population.

    According to Adalah, the unit’s methods violate “the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and due process”.

    In approving those methods, Adalah observed, the courts had conferred on the Israeli state the “unchecked” power “to govern online speech” and had allowed private tech companies to usurp control of the judicial process.

    Eghbariah said Palestinians could rarely challenge their silencing on social media. The tech companies do not reveal when Israel is behind the censorship or what “terms of service” have been violated.

    In court, Israeli officials defended their sweeping suppression of online content by arguing that ultimately social media companies like Google and Facebook were free to decide whether to accede to its requests.

    News sites shuttered

    However, Israeli officials have previously boasted that the tech giants almost always agree to remove whatever content Israel demands. In 2016, the justice ministry reported that Facebook and Google were “complying with up to 95 percent of Israeli requests to delete content” – almost all of it Palestinian.

    Eghbariah told The Electronic Intifada that some 80 percent of Israel’s referrals for removing content relate to Facebook and its other major platform, Instagram, both of which are heavily used by Palestinians.

    The next most targeted site was YouTube, where Palestinians often post videos showing attacks by Jewish settlers illegally taking over Palestinian land or Israeli soldiers invading Palestinian communities.

    The accounts of Palestinian news agencies and journalists have also been repeatedly shut down.

    Eghbariah noted that submissions by Israel’s cyber unit to social media platforms had skyrocketed since it was set up. In 2019, the last year for which there are figures, some 19,600 requests to remove content were submitted – an eightfold increase on three years earlier.

    He added that each referral to a tech company could relate to tens or hundreds of posts, and that the removal of a whole website typically counted as a single request.

    “What’s noticeable is the increasing cooperation rate of the social media platforms,” he said. “In 2016, three quarters of Israeli requests were complied with. By 2019 that had risen to 90 per cent.”

    Distinctions blurred

    Human Rights Watch is among those who have criticized Israel for blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism made by Palestinians and incitement.

    By contrast, the Palestinian digital rights group 7amleh has noted, Israel rarely takes action against Israeli Jews, even though they are responsible for posting racist or inciteful material roughly every minute.

    And the politicized nature of Israel’s crackdown on social media is often hard to disguise.

    In December 2017, Nariman Tamimi was detained for incitement.

    She had streamed a video on Facebook of her then 16-year-old daughter, Ahed, confronting and slapping an Israeli soldier who was invading their home in the occupied West Bank moments after his unit shot her cousin.

    Dareen Tatour, a poet from the town of Reine, next to Nazareth, spent years either in jail or under strict house arrest for supposedly glorifying violence in a poem.

    Experts said the lines had been misunderstood by Israel’s security services.

    Indeed, errors in translations from Arabic have been regularly evident. In a case in October 2017, a Palestinian laborer was arrested for supposedly threatening a terrorist attack on Facebook before it was discovered that the Arabic expression he used meant “good morning.”

    In 2019, 7amleh reported that fears over this online crackdown had left two-thirds of Palestinians worried about expressing their political views on social media.

    Normalizing censorship

    Other governments may look to the Israeli court’s decision in April as further encouragement to adopt a more aggressive role in censoring online content.

    Eghbariah said that the UK, France and the European Union already had their own cyber referral units, although unlike Israel’s those units were explicitly authorized by legislation.

    In a sign that Israel’s politicized approach to crushing online dissent could become normalized worldwide, an architect of Israel’s cyber unit was appointed to Facebook’s new oversight board last year. Emi Palmor was the justice ministry’s director-general at the time the unit was established.

    The board is supposed to oversee what content should be allowed on Facebook and Instagram.

    The Israeli cyber unit’s increasing efforts to remove content from Palestinians, labelling it “terrorism,” “disinformation” or “incitement,” are the latest stage in more than a decade of moves by Israel to control and manipulate its image online as social media has become more central in most people’s lives.

    Israel stepped up its digital activities after its large-scale attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, which killed large numbers of civilians, including children, and shocked much of the world.

    During the attack, the Israeli army established its own Youtube channel, the first army to do so, offering a model that the US army quickly sought to emulate.

    At the same time tech-savvy youngsters were recruited to pose as ordinary web-surfers as they secretly promoted foreign ministry talking-points.

    Several “cyber warrior” teams established in the following years, including one that recruited former officers from Israel’s military spying unit 8200.

    Erased from maps

    Since then, Israel has expanded its digital operations, not only promoting hasbara (propaganda) online but intensifying its silencing of Palestinians.

    At a conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2018, local representatives for Google and Facebook conceded that the companies’ priority was to avoid upsetting powerful governments like Israel’s that could tighten regulation or constrain their commercial activities.

    The tech giants are also unlikely to be neutral between the claims of the Israeli state and ordinary Palestinians when they are so reliant on Israel’s hi-tech sector. Technologies developed using the West Bank and Gaza as a testing-bed have been eagerly bought up by these global corporations.

    Incensed by Facebook’s censorship, a Palestinian campaign of online protests was launched in 2018 under the hashtag #FBcensorsPalestine.

    In Gaza, demonstrators have accused the company of being “another face of occupation.”

    Google and Apple have also faced a wave of criticism for colluding in Israel’s policy seeking to erase Palestinians’ visible presence in their homeland. The tech companies have failed to identify many Palestinian villages in the West Bank on their online maps and GPS services while highlighting illegal Jewish settlements.

    They have also refused to name the Palestinian territories as “Palestine,” in accordance with Palestine’s recognition by the United Nations, subordinating these areas under the title “Israel.”

    Jerusalem is presented as Israel’s unified and undisputed capital, just as Israel claims – making the occupation of the Palestinian section of the city invisible.

    • First published in Electronic Intifada

    The post Tech giants help Israel muzzle Palestinians first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Australian media giant Nine has signed content sharing deals with Facebook and Google worth tens of millions of dollars, months after the bargaining code was passed by Parliament.

    In an announcement to the ASX on Tuesday, Nine confirmed that it had inked separate deals with the two Big Tech companies after months of negotiations.

    Nine has followed News Corp, Seven West Media and the Guardian, which have already signed content sharing deals with Facebook and Google. There are still ongoing concerns that no smaller media players have secured financial deals with the Big Tech players though.

    Google Dara
    Sundry Photography / Shutterstock

    Nine’s negotiations kicked off when the federal government was attempting to get its controversial news media bargaining code through Parliament amid fierce debate, which resulted in Facebook briefly banning all news content for Australian users.

    The code was eventually passed with a number of amendments, but neither Facebook or Google have been designated under the new laws, meaning it is yet to properly come into effect.

    Despite this, Nine’s announcement said the deals were made “following the Commonwealth government’s enactment of the news media bargaining code”.

    Nine’s deal with Facebook will run for three years and will involve the supplying of news video clips and access to digital news articles to Facebook’s news products.

    The Google deal is over five years and involves the supply of news content but not video content to Google’s News Showcase service and other news products. As part of the agreement, Google will also expand its marketing initiatives across Nine’s platform, the media company’s announcement said.

    The Facebook deal involves a minimum amount payable over the three years, while the Google deal is a fixed annual fee, with “modest growth” in the early years.

    Taking into account the termination of a separate Google advertising deal and other factors, Nine said it expects its revenue to grow by between $30 million and $40 million in 2020. The Australian Financial Review, owned by Nine, reported the Google deal to be worth more than $35 million annually, and the Facebook agreement to be worth more than $15 million.

    Seven West Media has signed very similar deals with Google and Facebook in recent weeks, as has News Corp. The Australian Community Media and The Guardian have also secured deals with the tech giants, while the ABC recently announced it had signed a letter of intent with both of the companies for content sharing deals.

    No smaller publishing companies have secured such deals though, leading to concerns the government’s reforms will only benefit the big players. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has encouraged these companies to apply for permission to collectively bargain with Facebook and Google, and Country Press Australia became the first to receive approval for this last month.

    The news media bargaining code was passed into law in Februar, but no company has been designated under it. The government has argued that the mere presence of the code has forced Facebook and Google to land deals with local media companies for fear of being subject to it.

    The recent federal budget handed ACMA more than $4 million to oversee the operation of the bargaining code.

    The bargaining code requires designated companies to enter into “final offer” arbitration to determine commercial revenue-sharing deals with Australian media companies.

    The post Nine signs Facebook and Google content sharing deals appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.