As the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook gave assurances of vigorous action against election disinformation, Republicans at a Senate hearing Tuesday pounded the social media companies over political bias, business practices and market dominance, laying the ground for curbs on their long-held legal protections.
Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg defended at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the safeguards against the use of their platforms to spread falsehoods and incite violence in the contest between President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. Responding to concern from Democrats on the panel, they pledged continued vigorous action for two special elections in Georgia that could determine in January which party controls the U.S. Senate.
Republican senators, including Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, revived complaints of censorship and anti-conservative bias against the social media platforms. They were reticent to address head-on the issue of election disinformation, an awkward topic for Republicans given that many of them have refused to knock down Trump’s unfounded claims of voting irregularities and fraud, even as misinformation disputing Biden’s victory has flourished online.
The actions that Twitter and Facebook took to quell the spread of disinformation angered Trump and his supporters.
Different grievances but a common adversary. Democrats, including President-elect Biden, also call for stripping away some of the protections that have shielded tech companies from legal responsibility for what people post.
They have focused their concern on hate speech and incitement on social media platforms that can spawn violence.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, asked Zuckerberg: “At what point will you stop giving in to baseless claims of anti-conservative bias and start exercising your control over Facebook to stop driving division?”
Graham pushed the case for Congress to curb the tech companies’ legal shield. “I think there’s Republican and Democrat concern about the power that’s being used by social media outlets to tell us what we can see and what we can’t, what’s true and what’s not,” Graham said.
Republicans and Democrats also are making common cause on Big Tech’s market dominance, endorsing stronger enforcement of antitrust laws and for some, the breakup of giants like Facebook and Google.
“Your companies are the most powerful in the world,” Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, told Dorsey and Zuckerberg.
“It is time we took action against these modern-day robber barons,” Hawley said, referring to the 19th century industrial moguls whose ruthless practices built fortunes.
Hawley exulted in a tweet: “Under oath, Zuckerberg admits Facebook DOES have ‘tools’ to track its users across the internet, across platforms, across accounts — all without user knowledge. I ask how many times this tool has been used domestically against Americans. Zuck won’t say.”
Zuckerberg, fending off Hawley’s accusations that Facebook coordinates its content moderation policies with rivals such as Google, said “We do coordinate and share on security-related topics” such as terrorism and foreign government influence — but not on policing content.
Despite fears over security in the runup to Election Day and social media companies bracing for the worst, the election turned out to be the most secure in U.S. history, federal and state officials from both parties say — repudiating Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud.
Twitter and Facebook have both slapped a misinformation label on some content from Trump, most notably his assertions linking voting by mail to fraud. On Monday, Twitter flagged Trump’s tweet proclaiming “I won the Election!” with this note: “Official sources called this election differently.”
Twitter has in many cases prevented users from retweeting Trump’s tweets, while Facebook allows its users to continue sharing Trump’s false claims.
Dorsey and Zuckerberg testified to the hearing via video. Dorsey said that Twitter flagged some 300,000 tweets between Oct. 27 and Nov. 11 for content that was disputed and potentially misleading, representing 0.2% of all U.S. election-related tweets sent during the period.
Zuckerberg said Facebook joined with election officials to remove false claims about polling conditions and displayed warnings on more than 150 million pieces of content after review by independent fact-checkers. Facebook also prohibited misrepresentations about how or when to vote as well as attempts to use threats on the coronavirus to scare people into not voting, he said.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that “election interference remains an ongoing threat.”
Facebook moved two days after the election to ban a large group called “Stop the Steal” that Trump supporters were using to organize protests against the vote count. The 350,000-member group echoed Trump’s baseless allegations of a rigged election rendering the results invalid.
For days after the election as the vote counting went on, copycat “Stop the Steal” groups were easily found on Facebook. As of Monday, Facebook appeared to have made them harder to find, though it was still possible to locate them, including some groups with thousands of members.
AP Technology Writers Barbara Ortutay in Oakland, California, and Matt O’Brien in Providence, Rhode Island, contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON (AP) — By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer
UK to launch new watchdog next year to police tech giants
By KELVIN CHAN AP Business Writer
LONDON (AP) — Britain plans to create a new watchdog to police big tech companies including Google and Facebook to counter their market dominance and prevent them from exploiting consumers and small businesses.
The U.K. government said Friday that it’s setting up a “Digital Markets Unit” next year to enforce a new code of conduct governing the behavior of tech giants that dominate the online advertising market.
The Digital Markets Unit, scheduled to launch in April, will oversee a new regulatory regime for tech companies that’s aimed at spurring more competition.
The measures were foreshadowed in findings by former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman, who was commissioned by the U.K. Treasury to carry out a review of the digital economy.
It’s part of a wider push by governments in the U.S. and Europe to constrain the power of big tech companies amid concern about their outsize influence. The European Union this week unveiled proposals to wrest control of data from tech companies and is set to release details next month of a sweeping overhaul of digital regulations aimed at preventing online gatekeepers from stifling competition. In the U.S., authorities are pursuing an antitrust case against Google and lawmakers have proposed breaking up big tech companies.
U.K. Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden said online platforms bring benefits to society, “but there is growing consensus in the U.K. and abroad that the concentration of power among a small number of tech companies is curtailing growth of the sector, reducing innovation and having negative impacts on the people and businesses that rely on them.”
The government still needs to consult on how the digital markets unit will operate and approve legislation for it.
Under the new code, tech companies would have to be more transparent about how they use consumers’ data. They would have to let users choose whether to receive personalised advertising, and wouldn’t be allowed to make it harder for customers to use rival platforms.
The Digital Markets Unit could be given the power to suspend, block or reverse any decisions made by big tech companies, and order them to take certain actions to comply with the code. If companies don’t comply, the watchdog could fine them, though the maximum penalty hasn’t yet been spelled out.
Google said online tools competition in the ad tech industry has been increasing and noted it gives users tools to manage and control their data.
“We support an approach that benefits people, businesses and society and we look forward to working constructively with the Digital Markets Unit so that everyone can make the most of the internet,” said Ronan Harris, the company’s vice president for U.K. and Ireland.
AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results
A statement describing the error came days after the company and the university described the shots as “highly effective” and made no mention of why some study participants didn’t receive as much vaccine in the first of two shots as expected.
In a surprise, the group of volunteers that got a lower dose seemed to be much better protected than the volunteers who got two full doses. In the low-dose group, AstraZeneca said, the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective. In the group that got two full doses, the vaccine appeared to be 62% effective. Combined, the drugmakers said the vaccine appeared to be 70% effective. But the way in which the results were arrived at and reported by the companies has led to pointed questions from experts.
The partial results announced Monday are from large ongoing studies in the U.K. and Brazil designed to determine the optimal dose of vaccine, as well as examine safety and effectiveness. Multiple combinations and doses were tried in the volunteers. They were compared to others who were given a meningitis vaccine or a saline shot.
Did Researchers Mean to Give a Half Dose?
Before they begin their research, scientists spell out all the steps they are taking, and how they will analyze the results. Any deviation from that protocol can put the results in question.
In a statement Wednesday, Oxford University said some of the vials used in the trial didn’t have the right concentration of vaccine so some volunteers got a half dose. The university said that it discussed the problem with regulators, and agreed to complete the late stage trial with two groups. The manufacturing problem has been corrected, according to the statement.
What About the Results Themselves?
Experts say the relatively small number of people in the low dose group makes it difficult to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. Some 2,741 people received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose, AstraZeneca said. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses.
Another factor: none of the people in the low-dose group were over 55 years old. Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people, so it could be that the youth of the participants in the low-dose group is why it looked more effective, not the size of the dose.
Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank.
“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,” he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.”
Why Would a Smaller First Dose Be More Effective?
Oxford researchers say they aren’t certain and they are working to uncover the reason.
Sarah Gilbert, one of the Oxford scientists leading the research, said the answer is probably related to providing exactly the right amount of vaccine to trigger the best immune response.
“It’s the Goldilocks amount that you want, I think, not too little and not too much. Too much could give you a poor quality response as well,” she said. “So you want just the right amount and it’s a bit hit and miss when you’re trying to go quickly to get that perfect first time.”
What Are the Next Steps?
Details of the trial results will be published in medical journals and provided to U.K. regulators so they can decide whether to authorize distribution of the vaccine. Those reports will include a detailed breakdown that includes demographic and other information about who got sick in each group, and give a more complete picture of how effective the vaccine is.
Moncef Slaoui, who leads the U.S. coronavirus vaccine program Operation Warp Speed, said Tuesday in a call with reporters that U.S. officials are trying to determine what immune response the vaccine produced, and may decide to modify the AstraZeneca study in the U.S. to include a half dose.
“But we want it to be based on data and science,” he said.
EU plans new rules giving Europeans more control of data
The European Union is laying out new standards for data giving Europeans more control over their personal information as it seeks to counter the power of U.S. and Chinese tech companies.
The EU’s executive Commission on Wednesday proposed new rules on the handling of data that would aim to give people, businesses and government bodies the confidence to share their information in a European data market.
The proposed legislation would would spell out how industrial and government data – normally off limits because of intellectual property rights, commercial confidentiality or privacy rights – could be shared to help society or boost the economy. The bloc’s strict privacy rules would still apply, with mechanisms in place to preserve confidentiality or anonymity.
The aim is to drive innovation in areas such as health care or climate change by allowing data to be more easily shared with companies or researchers.
Individuals could choose to donate their data for altruistic reasons – for example, a person with a rare disease providing their health information to medical researchers. Or people could allow access for a fee or use of a service. The new rules could pose a challenge to big tech companies like Google and Facebook that currently make billions in revenue by using data to sell ads and other services.
The proposal, known as the Digital Governance Act, calls for raising trust in data sharing by setting up a new system involving neutral and trustworthy middlemen who act as brokers of pools of data.
Europeans would be able to get more control of their data through “personal data spaces” that have tools and services that let them decide who can access their data and for what purpose.
“The framework offers an alternative model to the current data handling practices offered by big tech platforms,” the EU’s Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager said at a press briefing in Brussels.
Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner, said the regulations would help Europe become the world’s No. 1 “data continent.”
“With the ever-growing role of industrial data in our economy, Europe needs an open yet sovereign Single Market for data,” he said.
LONDON (AP) — By KELVIN CHAN Associated Press.
Closing the gap in mobile connectivity
CMC Networks to offer direct access to Microsoft Azure Peering Service
The multi-cloud adoption boom
Wearable tech: sales on the rise in India
5 Reasons Why… Telecoms is Important in Society
Telecom Sales Strategies that will Bring You Success in 2020
NEOM: A $500 Billion smart-city to be built in Saudi Arabia
10 tech facts you should know today 03/04/2020
- MedTech2 weeks ago
Pfizer and BioNTech develop vaccine candidate against COVID-19
- Press Releases2 weeks ago
Transforming Culture in the Kingdom: How ‘stc’ Focused on People to Compete in the Digital Age
- News3 weeks ago
Walmart abandons shelf-scanning robots, lets humans do work
- MedTech3 weeks ago
AI Against Covid-19 – can your cough reveal your condition?
- Feature Articles2 weeks ago
TelkomONE to become South Africa’s first streaming platform
- MedTech1 week ago
Vaccine warriors: Promising clinical results from Moderna and Pfizer
- 5G3 weeks ago
The (relay) race is on for CSPs to capture 5G revenue
- Feature Articles2 weeks ago
Three ways Fintech is empowering youth in Africa