Connect with us

News

Google, Apple and the antitrust tipping point

Published

on

Google, Apple and the antitrust tipping point

Stay informed with free updates

The last few weeks will be remembered as a historic turning point in global efforts to regulate the digital economy. In the past few days alone, we’ve seen the beginning of the third US vs Google antitrust case, as well as an EU ruling against Google and Apple.

Meanwhile, this summer, a federal judge found that Google’s search business held an illegal monopoly, the FTC launched a landmark investigation into digital price discrimination against individuals online, and commerce secretary Gina Raimondo — often considered one of the more business-friendly members of the Biden administration — gave a forceful endorsement of the fight against monopoly power at the Democratic National Convention.

Add to this the French crackdown on Telegram founder Pavel Durov, and Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in a post repudiating online disinformation, following Trump’s repost of AI deepfakes of her endorsing him. All of it has captured global headlines.

Advertisement

The upshot? While it will still take several years to build up the regulatory structures and legislative solutions needed to truly put digital platforms back in service to average citizens, we can declare a certain narrative victory over the arguments put forward since the 1990s by the largest technology platforms in order to entrench their power.

For example, it has now become quite clear that, no, Big Tech isn’t somehow unique among industries and thus deserving of special rules. And, yes, digital commerce and communication should follow the same guidelines as their bricks and mortar peers.

This philosophical shift began with two federal rulings finding Google an illegal monopoly. The third Google case, which began last Monday, will go further, shedding new light on the plumbing of online advertising. This should show the asymmetry of power that exists between Google and content creators and advertisers, as well as how surveillance capitalism as a whole has created the conditions necessary for companies of all types to algorithmically discriminate against their own customers.

Take the first point. Google’s surveillance capacity over publishers and advertisers allows it to potentially undercut advertising rates of various competitors in order to bolster its own advertising business.

But Google’s surveillance goes beyond just advertisers themselves. As a digital middleman, it can collect information about nearly everything we do online — work, play, access government services, talk to our doctors, our families and our banks, book vacations, buy homes, study for degrees.

Advertisement

That information can then be used by advertisers to give us different prices for different products and services. Ever feel like maybe you were being charged more for hotels, for example, because you are a business traveller used to paying full freight on an expense account? You probably are, and, if so, that’s illegal. 

As the FTC put it in a recent statement launching a deep investigation into algorithmic price discrimination, while the transparent use of freely given information to price products and services is normal, “now data collection has become common across devices, from smart cars to robotic vacuums to the phones in our pockets. Many consumers today are not actively aware that their devices constantly gather data about them, and that data can be used to charge them more money for products and services. An age-old practice of targeted pricing is now giving way to a new frontier of surveillance pricing.”

The new investigation chimes with several Department of Justice cases brought by top US antitrust enforcer Jonathan Kanter, who has brought a record number of cases during his tenure. More important than the breadth is the approach. His department has pulled ahead on issues like algorithmic pricing before private actors were able to build a body of judicial victories in lower courts that would make it hard to do so.

In 2022, Kanter launched what he calls Project Gretzky, named after ice hockey great Wayne Gretzky, because as he puts it, “what made Gretzky great is that he skates not to where the puck is, but to where it’s going.” When you are dealing with large technology platforms that can leverage the network effect to create competitive moats around areas entirely outside their own industries — such as healthcare, groceries, automobiles, or AI — that kind of prescience is crucial. 

It will take years to declare practical victory as fights play out over individual cases in industries from retail to farming, housing to insurance. These battles will dovetail with other policy areas, like the reformation of the global trading system and the adoption of new digital trade rules, or national security issues (digital espionage and chokepoints are a major worry for many governments around the world).

Advertisement

Still, the tipping point is clear. And while Harris has been sympathetic to Silicon Valley, I suspect the regulatory efforts will continue if she wins, in part because of her concern about civil liberties and discrimination. Big Tech’s business model has allowed individuals to be spliced, diced and discriminated against in myriad ways. That’s now starting to change. As we understand through these cases just how problematic the model is, and in how many ways our lives are affected, I suspect that digital rules will finally catch up to reality. 

rana.foroohar@ft.com

News

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

Published

on

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

For decades, immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law have had hopes of earning a green card, a document that allows them to live legally in the United States and gain a path to citizenship.

But under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.

The documents, which have not been previously reported, show how expansively the Trump administration is carrying out a directive from last August to vet green card applicants for “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views.

The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.

The materials were distributed last month to immigration officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and handles applications for green cards and other forms of legal status.

Advertisement

They reflect how U.S.C.I.S. — long considered the gateway agency for legal migration — has rapidly transformed under President Trump into another cog in his administration’s deportation machine. The agency has worked to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship and has hired armed federal agents to investigate immigration crimes.

The administration is also granting permanent legal residency to far fewer applicants. Green card approvals have fallen by more than half in recent months, according to a Times analysis of agency data.

“There is no room in America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support terrorist organizations,” Joseph Edlow, the agency’s director, told Congress in February.

Critics of Mr. Trump’s approach say the administration is seeking to restrict legitimate political speech, and has conflated opposition to Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

Basing green card decisions on “ideological screenings is fundamentally un-American and should have no place in a country built on the promise of free expression,” said Amanda Baran, a senior agency official under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Advertisement

Administration officials said they were defending American values.

“If you hate America, you have no business demanding to live in America,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesman for U.S.C.I.S.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States.”

The administration has moved aggressively against immigrants for expressing political views that officials have deemed anti-American, making ideology a central part of its immigration vetting process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists, including one who wrote a column criticizing her university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed reviewing the social media histories of tourists seeking to visit the United States.

Advertisement

Immigration officers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant foreigners long-term permanent residence. They have long considered a variety of factors, including criminal records, national security threats, family ties to the United States and employment histories.

Ideology has also traditionally been one of those factors. In some cases, U.S. law forbids officers from granting green cards to people who have belonged to a Communist or other “totalitarian” political party, have promoted anarchy or have called for the overthrow of the U.S. government by “force or violence or other unconstitutional means.”

But in the past, immigration officers have focused on statements that could incite or encourage violence, given concerns about infringing on constitutionally protected speech, former U.S.C.I.S. officials said.

The new training materials reviewed by The Times guide immigration officers through the factors they should consider when ruling on green card applications. They discourage officers from granting green cards to people with a history of “endorsing, promoting or supporting anti-American views” or “antisemitic terrorism, ideologies or groups.”

Immigration officers have been told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative.”

Advertisement

The documents list support for “subversive” ideologies as among other factors that could lead to an application being rejected. As an example, the materials point to someone “holding a sign advocating overthrow of the U.S. government.”

In addition, the guidance describes the desecration of the American flag as a negative factor, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order last year directing the Justice Department to prosecute protesters who burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

Immigration officers have also been told to scrutinize applicants who encourage antisemitism “through rhetorical or physical actions.” They were instructed to “focus particularly on aliens who engaged in on-campus anti-American and antisemitic activities” after the Hamas attacks against Israel in 2023, the documents show.

Further examples in the documents of conduct characterized as antisemitic include a social media post showing a map of Israel with the nation’s name crossed out and replaced with the word “Palestine.” Another illustrative post suggests that Israelis should “taste what people in Gaza are tasting.”

Immigration officers must elevate all cases involving “potential anti-American and/or antisemitic conduct or ideology” to their managers and to the agency’s general counsel’s office for review, according to the documents.

Advertisement

In recent months, the agency has also changed the way it refers to the employees who adjudicate green card applications, long known as “immigration services officers.” In job postings, it now calls them “homeland defenders.”

“Protect your homeland and defend your culture,” one posting says.

Steven Rich contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

News

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Published

on

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Additional work by Jana Tauschinski

Oil and gas tanker location and destination data are from Kpler. The map shows the latest position for vessels with an active AIS signal on April 19–20, filtered by minimum capacity thresholds: crude tankers of at least 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT); oil product tankers of at least 55,000 DWT; oil/chemical tankers of at least 40,000 DWT; LNG carriers of at least 150,000 cubic metres; and LPG carriers of at least 50,000 cubic metres. Net fossil fuel import data by country are based on Ember analysis of the IEA World Energy Balances 2023.

Continue Reading

News

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

Published

on

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

A 26-year-old man is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two University of South Florida doctoral students who went missing last week, local authorities said Saturday. 

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said that evidence presented to the state attorney’s office resulted in the charges against Hisham Abugharbieh, the roommate of Zamil Limon, one of the doctoral students. 

Abugharbieh is accused of premediated murder with a weapon. He was arrested on Friday, the same day Limon was found dead. 

The family of Nahida Bristy, the other doctoral student, told CBS News that police said she is also likely dead. That is based on the volume of blood discovered at Abugharbieh’s residence, which he shared with Limon.

“Police told us she is no longer with us,” Bristy’s brother, Zahid Prato, said early Saturday.

Advertisement

The family was told her body may never be found and police believe she may have been dismembered, according to Prato. 

CBS News has reached out to police for more information.

Authorities said in a statement Saturday they were still searching for Bristy.

Limon’s remains were found on the Howard Franklin Bridge in Tampa Friday morning, Chief Deputy Joseph Maurer with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. His cause of death was pending autopsy results.

Deputies with the sheriff’s office took Abugharbieh into custody on Friday after responding to a domestic violence call at a home in the Lake Forest Community, a neighborhood near USF’s Tampa campus, officials said. He also faces charges of domestic violence and evidence tampering, as well as a charge of failing to report a death to law enforcement.

Advertisement

Limon and Bristy, both 27, had last been seen in the Tampa area on April 16. 

Limon was studying the use of AI in environmental science and was set to present his doctoral thesis this week, his family said. Bristy is studying chemical engineering. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending