https://www.bigtechwiki.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Btw+admin 2026-04-10T11:18:20Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.37.1 https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=419 2022-04-22T19:39:42Z

<p>Btw admin: /* Big Tech Wiki Page */</p> <hr /> <div>== Big Tech Wiki Page ==<br /> * Big Tech<br /> **Big Tech, Lobbying, and Proxy Organizations Funded By Big Tech<br /> ***Trade/Proxy Organizations funded by Big Tech<br /> ****[[TechNet]]<br /> ****[[ACT - The App Association]]<br /> ****[[Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)]]<br /> ****[[NetChoice]]<br /> ****[[Consumer Technology Association (CTA)]]<br /> ****[[Developers Alliance]]<br /> ****[[Internet Association]]<br /> ****[[Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)]]<br /> ****[[New York Coalition for Independent Work]]<br /> ****[[American Edge]]<br /> ****[[Download Fairness Coalition]]<br /> ****[[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]]<br /> ****[[Chamber of Progress]]<br /> ****[[Connected Commerce Council]]<br /> ****[[Financial Innovation Now (FIN)]]<br /> ***Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research<br /> ****[[Global Antitrust Institute]]<br /> ****[[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]<br /> ****[[Links to Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC]]<br /> ****[[Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech's lobbying vs other Toxic Industries]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech Influence Maps]]<br /> <br /> *[[Big Tech and National Security]]<br /> **[[Disinformation and Big Tech as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Hacks and Vulnerabilities as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Antitrust Reform and National Security Pushback]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and China]]<br /> *Big Tech and Financial Services<br /> **[[Big Tech entering Financial Services]]<br /> ***[[Google Pay]]<br /> ***[[Amazon]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Libra/Crypto]]<br /> ***[[Apple Card and Apple Pay]]<br /> ***[[Consumer Financial Bureau Regulation|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation]]<br /> ***[[Further Concerns]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Regulation]]<br /> **[[Small Business Support of Regulation]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Climate]]<br /> *Big Tech and Social Justice<br /> **[[Lack of Latinos in Big Tech]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Spanish Language Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Anti-Vax Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech Lying to Congress]]<br /> **[[Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Algorithmic Bias]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *Amazon<br /> **[[Amazon and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Amazon and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Workers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Taxes]]<br /> **[[Amazon and National Security]]<br /> *Apple<br /> **[[Apple and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Apple and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Apple and Privacy]]<br /> **[[Apple and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Apple and Workers]]<br /> **[[Apple and China]]<br /> **[[Apple and Taxes]]<br /> *Facebook<br /> **Facebook and Consumers<br /> ***[[Facebook Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Is Building Another Monopoly In &quot;The Metaverse&quot;]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Facing Pressure from Consumers, Regulators]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Cryptocurrency Not Trusted by Lawmakers]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Facebook's Oversight Board]]<br /> **Facebook and Dissent<br /> ***[[Facebook and Whistleblowers]]<br /> ***[[NYU Study on Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook's False Claim To Supporting Regulation]]<br /> **Facebook and User Harm<br /> ***[[Allowing Illegal Actions for Ads]]<br /> ***[[Failures to Keep Children Safe]]<br /> ***[[Facebook and Mental Health]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Taxes]]<br /> *Google<br /> **[[Google and Consumers]]<br /> ***[[Google Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> **[[Google and Small Businesses]]<br /> **[[Google and Koch Connections]]<br /> **[[Google Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Google and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Google and National Security]]<br /> **[[Google and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_and_China&diff=418 2022-04-22T19:33:01Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>Apple is deeply embedded in China, manufacturing most of its products there and conceding to demands from the Chinese government to censor content.<br /> <br /> * Apple has been manufacturing in China since 2001, with most iPhones, iPads, and Macs now manufacturing there.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/technology/apple-china-doug-guthrie.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * China is Apple’s third-largest revenue market, and Tim Cook has gone to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with Xi, making frequent visits to China and meeting with top leaders.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/technology/apple-tim-cook-china.html?action=click&amp;module=RelatedLinks&amp;pgtype=Article&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Apple has invested in Chinese companies, including $1 billion in rideshare company Didi, and has a deal with China Mobile, the country’s largest telecom company.<br /> <br /> * Apple built data centers in China in order to comply with Chinese law, putting Chinese users’ data at risk. Encryption keys are stored in China, and Apple has handed over data from users’ iCloud accounts to the Chinese government.<br /> <br /> * Apple heavily censors its Chinese App Store, removing 91 percent of app takedown requests from the Chinese government, including news apps, encrypted apps, and gay dating apps, with Tim Cook personally approving some of the approvals. It has also removed apps used by Hong Kong protestors, removed the Taiwanese flag emoji from iPhone keyboards in China, and showed Taiwan as part of China on Maps. Apple is currently being sued by a former employee who claimed he was fired for not censoring a dissident’s app.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kong-app.html?action=click&amp;module=RelatedLinks&amp;pgtype=Article&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kong-app.html?action=click&amp;module=RelatedLinks&amp;pgtype=Article&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * At least seven of Apple’s suppliers in China used forced Uighur labor. In 2020, Apple lobbied against a bill meant to curb the use of forced labor in China.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theinformation.com/articles/seven-apple-suppliers-accused-of-using-forced-labor-from-xinjiang&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * For its actions to appease the Chinese government, Apple has risen in the Chinese government’s social responsibility rankings, from No. 141 in 2016 to No. 30 in 2020. <br /> <br /> Despite its search engine being banned in China, Google has built a presence there.<br /> <br /> * In 2017, Google opened an AI research center in Shanghai. CEO Sundar Pichai has attended state-run internet conferences in China.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/13/alphabets-google-opens-china-ai-centre.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * In 2018, Google began to internally develop a censored search engine in China but did not launch it after outcry from employees and human rights groups.&lt;ref&gt;https://theintercept.com/2019/01/18/google-dragonfly-project-protests/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * In 2020, Google’s former head of policy in Asia alleged that his proposals to safeguard human rights in China were internally stonewalled and that he was fired for his human rights advocacy.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/02/top-google-exec-pushed-company-commit-human-rights-then-google-pushed-him-out-he-says/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * In 2020, an Australian think tank released a report alleging that Google was using forced labor in China.&lt;ref&gt;https://mashable.com/article/apple-amazon-forced-labor-uyghur-china&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Google has hired employees in China for manufacturing, cloud computing, business development, and more.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/google-china-what-businesses-the-search-giant-has-in-the-country.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A non-profit founded by Google and IBM worked with a company that was helping the Chinese government surveil millions of its citizens.&lt;ref&gt;https://theintercept.com/2019/07/11/china-surveillance-google-ibm-semptian/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Amazon has scaled-up its Chinese seller marketplace and partnered with a company complicit in genocide against the Uighurs.<br /> <br /> * In 2020, Amazon bought 1,500 cameras from Dahua, a company the Department of Commerce put on an entity blacklist for using AI to surveil and identify Uighurs&lt;ref&gt;https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-amazon-com-cameras/exclusive-amazon-turns-to-chinese-firm-on-u-s-blacklist-to-meet-thermal-camera-needs-idUSKBN22B1AL&lt;/ref&gt; In 2021, Senators Menendez and Rubio wrote a letter to Jeff Bezos, noting that it appeared that Amazon knowingly did business with a company complicit in genocide.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-02-10/senators-amazon-dahua-inquiry-uighurs-rubio-menendez&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2019, the Wall Street Journal found that an increase in China-based sellers on Amazon led to an increase in counterfeit goods and goods that failed to meet U.S. regulatory requirements. Additionally, U.S. and Canadian-based sellers felt squeezed by competing with cheap low- quality goods sold by Chinese merchants on Amazon.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazons-heavy-recruitment-of-chinese-sellers-puts-consumers-at-risk-11573489075&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2021, 75 percent of new sellers on Amazon were based in China. Amazon has made an effort to recruit China-based sellers, sending staff to China to do so.&lt;ref&gt;https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/11/chinese-products-get-pulled-from-amazon/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * In 2021, Amazon lobbied against a Senate bill meant to protect U.S. consumers from counterfeit goods originating in China.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/09/amazon-consumer-china-legislation/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Since 2013, Amazon has offered its AWS service in China, and has touted its expanded footprint.&lt;ref&gt;https://aws.amazon.com/china-gateway/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2020, an Australian think tank released a report alleging that Amazon was using forced labor in China.&lt;ref&gt;https://mashable.com/article/apple-amazon-forced-labor-uyghur-china&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Despite its platform being banned in China, Facebook derives significant advertising revenue there and has failed to take action against state-run media ads.<br /> <br /> * Facebook derives $5 billion in advertising revenue from China, second only to the U.S. In 2020, Facebook set up an engineering team in Singapore to provide customer support to China-based advertisers.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-staff-fret-over-chinas-ads-portraying-happy-muslims-in-xinjiang-11617366096&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Since at least 2019, Chinese state media outlets have run promoted ads on Facebook aimed at U.S. users, claiming that Uighurs benefited from detention. Facebook declined to ban state-run media from running ads without independent editorial oversight, even as Twitter took action.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/chinse-media-facebook-ads-xinjiang-uighur-propaganda&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** In 2021, Chinese state media has continued with its disinformation campaign on Facebook, sparking employee complaints.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-staff-fret-over-chinas-ads-portraying-happy-muslims-in-xinjiang-11617366096&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2016, Facebook began to internally develop a censored version of its platform to allow it to operate in China, leading to employees quitting. The platform never launched.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_and_China&diff=417 2022-04-22T19:07:44Z

<p>Btw admin: Created page with &quot;Apple is deeply embedded in China, manufacturing most of its products there and conceding to demands from the Chinese government to censor content. * Apple has been manufacturing in China since 2001, with most iPhones, iPads, and Macs now manufacturing there. * China is Apple’s third-largest revenue market, and Tim Cook has gone to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with Xi, making frequent visits to China and meeting with top leaders. * Apple has in...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Apple is deeply embedded in China, manufacturing most of its products there and conceding to demands from the Chinese government to censor content.<br /> <br /> * Apple has been manufacturing in China since 2001, with most iPhones, iPads, and Macs now manufacturing there.<br /> <br /> * China is Apple’s third-largest revenue market, and Tim Cook has gone to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with Xi, making frequent visits to China and meeting with top leaders.<br /> <br /> * Apple has invested in Chinese companies, including $1 billion in rideshare company Didi, and has a deal with China Mobile, the country’s largest telecom company.<br /> <br /> * Apple built data centers in China in order to comply with Chinese law, putting Chinese users’ data at risk. Encryption keys are stored in China, and Apple has handed over data from users’ iCloud accounts to the Chinese government.<br /> <br /> * Apple heavily censors its Chinese App Store, removing 91 percent of app takedown requests from the Chinese government, including news apps, encrypted apps, and gay dating apps, with Tim Cook personally approving some of the approvals. It has also removed apps used by Hong Kong protestors, removed the Taiwanese flag emoji from iPhone keyboards in China, and showed Taiwan as part of China on Maps. Apple is currently being sued by a former employee who claimed he was fired for not censoring a dissident’s app.<br /> <br /> * At least seven of Apple’s suppliers in China used forced Uighur labor. In 2020, Apple lobbied against a bill meant to curb the use of forced labor in China.<br /> <br /> * For its actions to appease the Chinese government, Apple has risen in the Chinese government’s social responsibility rankings, from No. 141 in 2016 to No. 30 in 2020. <br /> <br /> Despite its search engine being banned in China, Google has built a presence there.<br /> <br /> * In 2017, Google opened an AI research center in Shanghai. CEO Sundar Pichai has attended state-run internet conferences in China.<br /> <br /> * In 2018, Google began to internally develop a censored search engine in China but did not launch it after outcry from employees and human rights groups.<br /> <br /> * In 2020, Google’s former head of policy in Asia alleged that his proposals to safeguard human rights in China were internally stonewalled and that he was fired for his human rights advocacy.<br /> <br /> * In 2020, an Australian think tank released a report alleging that Google was using forced labor in China.<br /> * Google has hired employees in China for manufacturing, cloud computing, business development, and more.<br /> * A non-profit founded by Google and IBM worked with a company that was helping the Chinese government surveil millions of its citizens.<br /> <br /> Amazon has scaled-up its Chinese seller marketplace and partnered with a company complicit in genocide against the Uighurs.<br /> <br /> * In 2020, Amazon bought 1,500 cameras from Dahua, a company the Department of Commerce put on an entity blacklist for using AI to surveil and identify Uighurs. In 2021, Senators Menendez and Rubio wrote a letter to Jeff Bezos, noting that it appeared that Amazon knowingly did business with a company complicit in genocide.<br /> * In 2019, the Wall Street Journal found that an increase in China-based sellers on Amazon led to an increase in counterfeit goods and goods that failed to meet U.S. regulatory requirements. Additionally, U.S. and Canadian-based sellers felt squeezed by competing with cheap low- quality goods sold by Chinese merchants on Amazon.<br /> * In 2021, 75 percent of new sellers on Amazon were based in China. Amazon has made an effort to recruit China-based sellers, sending staff to China to do so.<br /> <br /> * In 2021, Amazon lobbied against a Senate bill meant to protect U.S. consumers from counterfeit goods originating in China.<br /> * Since 2013, Amazon has offered its AWS service in China, and has touted its expanded footprint.<br /> * In 2020, an Australian think tank released a report alleging that Amazon was using forced labor in China.<br /> <br /> Despite its platform being banned in China, Facebook derives significant advertising revenue there and has failed to take action against state-run media ads.<br /> <br /> * Facebook derives $5 billion in advertising revenue from China, second only to the U.S. In 2020, Facebook set up an engineering team in Singapore to provide customer support to China-based advertisers.<br /> * Since at least 2019, Chinese state media outlets have run promoted ads on Facebook aimed at U.S. users, claiming that Uighurs benefited from detention. Facebook declined to ban state-run media from running ads without independent editorial oversight, even as Twitter took action.<br /> ** In 2021, Chinese state media has continued with its disinformation campaign on Facebook, sparking employee complaints.<br /> * In 2016, Facebook began to internally develop a censored version of its platform to allow it to operate in China, leading to employees quitting. The platform never launched.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Antitrust_Reform_and_National_Security_Pushback&diff=416 2022-04-22T15:35:59Z

<p>Btw admin: Created page with &quot;As antitrust reform has advanced, former National Security figures that have clear conflicts of interest have been called in to pushback. * A letter was written to the Congressional members by 12 former Security figures. According to Politico all 12 have ties to Big Tech.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/22/former-security-officials-antitrust-tech-ties-513657&lt;/ref&gt; * Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who was instrumental in putting together th...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>As antitrust reform has advanced, former National Security figures that have clear conflicts of interest have been called in to pushback.<br /> <br /> * A letter was written to the Congressional members by 12 former Security figures. According to Politico all 12 have ties to Big Tech.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/22/former-security-officials-antitrust-tech-ties-513657&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who was instrumental in putting together the letter, is a senior adviser with the law firm King &amp; Spalding, which represents Google before the House Judiciary Committee in the panel’s antitrust investigation into the tech giants. King &amp; Spalding wrote a white paper released last week by Google’s major trade group, the Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association, making similar arguments that the antitrust bills could harm national security.<br /> * Seven of the 12, including former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta, hold roles at Beacon Global Strategies, a public relations firm that according to a person familiar with the matter counts Google as a client. (The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the firm does not publicize its clientele.)<br /> * Five of the former officials, including former director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Robert Cardillo and former National Security Agency deputy director Richard Ledgett, serve as advisory board members at Beacon. Panetta and Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director under President Barack Obama, are senior counselors for the firm.<br /> * Cardillo, the former NGA director, earlier this year became chair of the board of the Earth imaging company Planet Federal. Planet Federal is a division of Planet Labs, a company in which Google has a significant equity stake.<br /> * All the signatories have connections to organizations that either receive money from the tech giants or defense companies that partner closely with Amazon and Google — a sign of just how ubiquitous big tech funding has become in Washington’s policy world.<br /> * Sue Gordon, a former principal deputy director of national intelligence, is an advisory board member of the Antonin Scalia Law School’s National Security Institute, which counts Amazon as a major funder. James Foggo III, a retired Navy admiral, is a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, which Google lists as one of the organizations it funds.<br /> * Frances Townsend, who was a counterterrorism and homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, is on the national security advisory board for American Edge, a Facebook-funded group that opposes changes to strengthen antitrust laws. Townsend is also on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council, which counts Facebook and Google as funders; the board of trustees for Center for Strategic and International Studies, which counts Apple and Google as funders; and the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, which receives money from Microsoft and counts Facebook and Google in its highest membership category.<br /> <br /> But there have also been support for antitrust reform from former National Security figures.<br /> <br /> * A letter was written by former Secretaries Homeland Security Tom Ridge and Janet Napolitano in support of the Open App Markets Act.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/national-security-bigwigs-split-over-bills-targeting-amazon-apple-and-google&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** They assert that there are existing security flaws in the App Stores, that self preferencing will continue to undermine App security, and greater competition in App distribution and payment processing will improve security. <br /> <br /> At an Open Markets Institute event, former General Wesley Clark, a current chair of an investment bank focused on energy start-ups and is on the board of software firm Solace, made the case for the The American Innovation and Choice Online Act.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2022/02/16/u-s-risks-blowback-over-russia-chip-sanctions-00009328&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * He called the bill, a &quot;boost to National Security.&quot;<br /> * He added that massive tech firms make &quot;compromises&quot; to operate in places like China.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=415 2022-04-22T14:31:58Z

<p>Btw admin: /* Big Tech Wiki Page */</p> <hr /> <div>== Big Tech Wiki Page ==<br /> * Big Tech<br /> **Big Tech, Lobbying, and Proxy Organizations Funded By Big Tech<br /> ***Trade/Proxy Organizations funded by Big Tech<br /> ****[[TechNet]]<br /> ****[[ACT - The App Association]]<br /> ****[[Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)]]<br /> ****[[NetChoice]]<br /> ****[[Consumer Technology Association (CTA)]]<br /> ****[[Developers Alliance]]<br /> ****[[Internet Association]]<br /> ****[[Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)]]<br /> ****[[New York Coalition for Independent Work]]<br /> ****[[American Edge]]<br /> ****[[Download Fairness Coalition]]<br /> ****[[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]]<br /> ****[[Chamber of Progress]]<br /> ****[[Connected Commerce Council]]<br /> ****[[Financial Innovation Now (FIN)]]<br /> ***Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research<br /> ****[[Global Antitrust Institute]]<br /> ****[[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]<br /> ****[[Links to Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC]]<br /> ****[[Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech's lobbying vs other Toxic Industries]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech Influence Maps]]<br /> <br /> *[[Big Tech and National Security]]<br /> **[[Disinformation and Big Tech as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Hacks and Vulnerabilities as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Antitrust Reform and National Security Pushback]]<br /> *Big Tech and Financial Services<br /> **[[Big Tech entering Financial Services]]<br /> ***[[Google Pay]]<br /> ***[[Amazon]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Libra/Crypto]]<br /> ***[[Apple Card and Apple Pay]]<br /> ***[[Consumer Financial Bureau Regulation|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation]]<br /> ***[[Further Concerns]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Regulation]]<br /> **[[Small Business Support of Regulation]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Climate]]<br /> *Big Tech and Social Justice<br /> **[[Lack of Latinos in Big Tech]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Spanish Language Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Anti-Vax Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech Lying to Congress]]<br /> **[[Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Algorithmic Bias]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *Amazon<br /> **[[Amazon and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Amazon and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Workers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Taxes]]<br /> **[[Amazon and National Security]]<br /> *Apple<br /> **[[Apple and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Apple and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Apple and Privacy]]<br /> **[[Apple and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Apple and Workers]]<br /> **[[Apple and China]]<br /> **[[Apple and Taxes]]<br /> *Facebook<br /> **Facebook and Consumers<br /> ***[[Facebook Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Is Building Another Monopoly In &quot;The Metaverse&quot;]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Facing Pressure from Consumers, Regulators]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Cryptocurrency Not Trusted by Lawmakers]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Facebook's Oversight Board]]<br /> **Facebook and Dissent<br /> ***[[Facebook and Whistleblowers]]<br /> ***[[NYU Study on Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook's False Claim To Supporting Regulation]]<br /> **Facebook and User Harm<br /> ***[[Allowing Illegal Actions for Ads]]<br /> ***[[Failures to Keep Children Safe]]<br /> ***[[Facebook and Mental Health]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Taxes]]<br /> *Google<br /> **[[Google and Consumers]]<br /> ***[[Google Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> **[[Google and Small Businesses]]<br /> **[[Google and Koch Connections]]<br /> **[[Google Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Google and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Google and National Security]]<br /> **[[Google and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Trade/Proxy_Organizations_funded_by_Big_Tech&diff=414 2022-03-29T02:41:13Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> '''TechNet'''<br /> <br /> * TechNet Functioned As A &quot;Political Shield&quot; For Members, Including Google And Apple, To Push Their Agenda <br /> ** TechNet is a trade association for technology CEOs and executives, including Google and Apple. <br /> ** TechNet held annual lobbying conferences so members, including Google and Apple, could push their agenda on politicians. <br /> ** Wired on TechNet: &quot;Tech's most powerful advocacy group.&quot; <br /> ** Wired: TechNet &quot;has grown to become the valley's strongest fundraising network and lobbying voice in Washington, backed by Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others.&quot; <br /> ** Tech Crunch: TechNet functioned as a &quot;political shield&quot; for its big tech members, including Apple<br /> <br /> '''ACT - the App Association'''<br /> <br /> * Apple Funded ACT Pushed Apple's Agenda, Causing An Alternative App Developer Association To Be Created Specifically To Avoid The Conflict Of Interest <br /> ** Apple funded the ACT- The App Association. <br /> ** ACT attacked the Supreme Court's decision on Apple versus Pepper, taking Apple's side in the case.<br /> *** ACT took Apple's side in the Supreme Court decision Apple versus Pepper, arguing the decision &quot;robbed developers of their autonomy and independence by categorizing them as mere suppliers or manufacturers to platforms.&quot; <br /> *** In reality, the decision allowed consumers to sue Apple for monopolistic behavior in the Apple app store. <br /> <br /> * ACT's funding from Apple caused an alternative trade organization to be created independent from the big tech funders and the conflict of interest. <br /> ** ACT member Southern DNA provided no portfolio of work on its website and primarily used its social media to promote ACT's lobbying efforts.<br /> <br /> '''Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)'''<br /> <br /> * Apple, Amazon, And Google Were Members Of Electronic Transactions Association (ETA), A Trade Association That Spent Millions In Federal Lobbying.<br /> ** In 7 years, the Association reported $6,720,000 in lobbying costs -- $1,120,000 of that came in just 2020.<br /> ** ETA reported lobbying on H.R. 4813 (Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act), which sought to bar Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon from providing banking services.<br /> ** ETAPAC contributed $96,300 to Federal House and Senate candidates in the 2019/20 cycle.<br /> <br /> '''NetChoice'''<br /> <br /> * NetChoice Attacked Lawsuits That Directly And Indirectly Threatened Organization Member Google<br /> ** NetChoice aggressively defended Apple's app store business model, a business model that mirrored organization member Google's app store.<br /> *** Google is a member of NetChoice.<br /> *** NetChoice aggressively defended Apple's app store business model. NetChoice Vice President described the apple app store as &quot;an innovative ecosystem that helped create the hypercompetitive app economy.&quot; NetChoice Vice President: &quot;Apple's defense illustrates a commitment to an ecosystem that fosters competition, user ease, and up-and-coming developers.&quot; A study found Apple's app store was functionally the same as Google's app store business model.<br /> *** NetChoice aggressively and repeatedly opposed lawsuits against Google.<br /> <br /> '''Consumer Technology Association (CTA)'''<br /> <br /> * Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Counted All Four – Amazon, Facebook, Apple, And Alphabet (Google) As Members. <br /> ** CTA spent $10,370,000 on federal lobbying in 2019 – 2020 alone. <br /> ** CTA fought Right to Repair laws that were under consideration in 25 state legislatures. Right to Repair proposals required tech manufacturers to provide independent repair shops access to parts and schematics to fix devices like computers and phones.<br /> *** CTA argued such policies threatened brands' reputation; poorly done repairs by unauthorized dealers or substandard parts would damage the public's perception of product quality. <br /> <br /> '''Developers Alliance'''<br /> <br /> * Facebook And Google Were Members Of The Developers Alliance, Which Claimed To Represent Some 70,000 App Developers.<br /> ** Developers Alliance spent $1,018,100 on federal lobbying between 2013 – 2020. $125,000 of that spending came in 2019 – 2020.<br /> <br /> * Developers Alliance argued that traditional market risks were irrelevant in digital platform competition and that consumers benefit from a &quot;functioning market&quot; in which Apps were channeled into limited, controlled platforms.<br /> * Developers Alliance argued that most developers were satisfied with the existing platform options.<br /> * Developers Alliance opposed 2021 legislation in Arizona (House Bill 2005) and Rhode Island (House Bill 6055).<br /> ** Arizona's House Bill 2005 offered app developers the option to use alternative payment methods to circumvent the 15 – 30% cut Apple and Google 15 – 30% take from App Sales on their platforms.<br /> ** Rhode Island's 6055 bill banned app distribution platforms from requiring developers to use their platform exclusively to list their apps and allowed app developers the option to use alternative payment methods. <br /> <br /> '''Internet Association'''<br /> <br /> * Google, Facebook, And Amazon Were Members Of Internet Association.<br /> ** Amazon disclosed it contributed $30,000 To Internet Association's California PAC in 2020.<br /> ** Internet Association reported spending more than $13.9 million in federal lobbying over a 7-year period between 2013 – 2020.<br /> ** Internet Association alleged attempts to regulate the sharing economy – like Amazon Flex – were a tactic by &quot;legacy corporations&quot; to &quot;stifle&quot; the competition.<br /> <br /> '''Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)'''<br /> <br /> * Portable Rechargeable Battery Association Counted Apple And Amazon As Members.<br /> ** PRBA has not registered federal lobbying activity since 2013.<br /> ** PRBA hosted annual member regulatory meetings, including one in November 2020 that included Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency officials as featured speakers, effectively giving its members direct access.<br /> ** PRBA submitted public comments to federal regulatory bodies.<br /> ** PRBA's Executive Director George Kerchner directly influenced both federal and state public policy; in 2019, he was appointed to the US Department of Transportation Lithium Battery Safety Committee and the California Environmental Protection Agency's Lithium-Ion Car Battery Recycling Advisory Group.<br /> <br /> '''New York Coalition for Independent Work'''<br /> <br /> * In December 2020, TechNet And Internet Association (whose membership included Amazon) announced they were working with the New York Coalition for Independent Work.<br /> ** The Coalition claimed to work on behalf of app-based contractors to defend their right to flexibility while also working to provide them with benefits. The Coalition ran Letters to the Editors and Op-eds in local newspapers supposedly written by ride-sharing workers defending the flexibility of gig-based jobs and downplaying the poor pay.<br /> ** The Coalition pushed New York to adopt a California Proposition 22 style policy that defined sharing economy workers like Uber and Lyft drivers as contractors instead of employees. Proposition 22 was a massive win for sharing economy companies.  As contractors, sharing economy workers did not have rights to minimum wage or other key legal protections that come with being classified as an employee. Proposition 22 provided contractors with the right to access healthcare through independent entities that their employers only partially funded. Proposition 22 benefited Amazon Flex.<br /> <br /> '''American Edge'''<br /> <br /> * In 2020 Facebook Launched American Edge, A Dark-Money Astroturf Group Designed To Combat Potential Federal Regulations.<br /> * American Edge obscured its donors by forming as a nonprofit, then launching an affiliated social welfare group that could legally push political messages through advertising and other means.<br /> <br /> * American Edge was formed to oppose antitrust legislation and promote big tech interests amid growing scrutiny of U.S. tech companies and political pressure to implement regulations.<br /> * Despite presenting itself as a grassroots nonprofit, American Edge was created and funded by Facebook. The tech giant was reportedly “critical” and worked “behind the scenes” to launch American Edge. Facebook even admitted its involvement with the organization. Company spokesman Andy Stone said Facebook was “leading an effort to start this coalition.” Facebook also reported donating to American Edge on its website. Notably, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg setup similar 501(c)4 organizations in the past to promote the company’s interests.<br /> * American Edge thwarted transparency and declined to name the company’s backers other than Facebook. In May 2020, John Ashbrook, a consultant advising American Edge, declined to name any of the organization’s corporate backers when asked. The group went on to release an August 2020 ad featuring prominent tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Zoom.<br /> * American Edge Coordinated With Facebook Using Various Strategies Designed To Oppose Antitrust Legislation And Protect Big Tech Interests. American Edge employed a variety of strategies aimed at opposing antitrust legislation and protecting big tech, many of which were coordinated with Facebook. <br /> ** Advertising was the most prominent strategy American Edge and Facebook used to promote their message. According to digital ad data from OpenSecrets, American Edge spent $265,000 on Facebook ads about technology policy from September 2020 to June 2021. Wired noted that American Edge and Facebook specifically “pump[ed] ads into the feeds of the DC policy audience” in an effort to influence legislation. According to the Tech Transparency Project, American Edge and Facebook launched an “ad blitz” ahead of Facebook CEO’s Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress.<br /> ** American Edge and Facebook also coordinated to sponsor newsletters in a variety of publications, including Politico, the Hill, Axios, and Punchbowl News. Newsletters typically allowed sponsors to insert a message of their choice in the digest. During a five-week period in 2021, Facebook and American Edge sponsored a combined 91 newsletters across publications. Notably, the uptick in sponsorships came ahead of Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress.<br /> * In addition to their coordination on advertising and newsletters, Facebook and American Edge used similar lines of argument to oppose antitrust regulations. Companies like Facebook and organizations like American Edge argued that antitrust reform could hinder U.S. competition with China. American Edge promoted this idea in an October m2021 report, as well as op-eds it dispatched across various publications around the country. Critics called the tactic a “thinly veiled effort to dodge regulation and ward off would-be backers.”<br /> * American Edge Assembled A Leadership Team With Immense Political Influence And Close Ties To Big Tech. American Edge assembled a team of advisors with political influence and close ties to big tech. According to the Washington Post, American Edge “[came] together with the aid of top Democratic and Republican operatives.” Its paid advisors were comprised of former members of Congress and political officials, tasked with influencing their friends and former colleagues to uphold big tech interests. Moreover, many advisors held personal financial interests in big tech’s success.<br /> ** Frances Townsend, a former White House Counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser, served on American Edge’s National Security Advisory Board. Townsend had connections to numerous other organizations that relied on big tech for funding. Townsend was on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council, which was funded by Facebook and Google. Notably, in October 2021, American Edge partnered with the Atlantic Council on a report critical of China’s influence over technology standards-setting. Townsend was also a member of the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which was funded by Apple and Google, as well as the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, which was funded by Microsoft, Facebook, and Google.<br /> ** Another American Edge advisory board member with ties to big tech was Democratic former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. As a Senator, Heitkamp accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from tech companies. Per OpenSecrets, Heitkamp’s fourth largest donor sector throughout her career was “communications/electronics,” and her third biggest donor was Google’s parent company, Alphabet. From 2013 to 2018, Heitkamp’s top overall donor was Google, which gave the Senator more than $131,000. Over that same period, Facebook gave Heitkamp $10,000 in donations. Although she is no longer a Senator, Heitkamp may still have a financial stake in big tech’s success. As of her most recent personal financial disclosure from 2019, Heitkamp reported holding stock in Apple and Google. Additionally, in 2019, Heitkamp launched an advocacy organization called the One Country Project in coordination with the lobbying firm Forbes Tate. The two groups reportedly had the same address, and One Country’s executive director was a partner at Forbes Tate. According to the Forbes Tate website, tech lobbying was one of the firm’s areas of specialty. From 2012 to 2014, Forbes Tate earned $200,000 lobbying on behalf of Amazon. <br /> **Republican former U.S. Representative and American Edge Advisory Board Member Greg Walden also had ties to big tech. According to OpenSecrets, “communications/electronics” was Walden’s second biggest donor sector throughout his career. From 2012 to 2019, Walden accepted $31,000 in donations from Facebook. As a Congressman, Walden was a friend to Facebook. He chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and called for “light-touch regulation, not heavy-handed government” when it came to regulating the tech industry. Additionally, Walden represented a district in Oregon where Facebook did “a lot of business” and received big tax breaks for data centers. Slate pointed out the tax breaks as a potential conflict of interest when Walden led Mark Zuckerberg’s hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.<br /> ** Like Walden, American Edge board member and Republican former Governor of New Mexico Susana Martinez offered Facebook big economic incentives to build data centers in her state. As governor, Martinez announced that Facebook would expand its data center in Los Lunas, New Mexico. Facebook entertained bids to build data centers in both New Mexico and Utah, but the company ultimately selected New Mexico after being offered tax breaks on billions of dollars in computer equipment and annual payments topping out at $500,000 instead of property taxes.<br /> ** Other American Edge Advisory Board members with tech ties included Democratic former Rep. Chris Carney and Republican former Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Since leaving office, Carney has worked at the lobbying firm Nossaman LLP. In October 2019, Carney registered to lobby on behalf of NMR Consulting, an information technology company that partnered with Microsoft. Chambliss also had big tech ties. According to a 2014 Los Angeles Times report, “Tech execs who look more like old-school Fortune 500 barons are coming out of the closet, opening the checkbooks for old-fashioned GOP politicians such as ... Sen. Saxby Chambliss.” Additionally, while we don’t have information about Chambliss’s finances since he left office, he held stock in Apple per his most recent financial disclosure report filed in 2015.<br /> ** Finally, Bradley Smith, an American Edge director and former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, did not have apparent ties to big tech, but had previous experience that would be favorable to 501(c)4 organizations trying to conceal their donors. After resigning from the FEC in 2005, Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that opposed strengthening campaign finance laws. As of December 2021, Smith still chaired the organization (though it was renamed the Institute for Free Speech in 2017). In 2014, Smith’s organization opposed a proposed IRS Rule that would limit spending by 501(c)4 organizations in response to “dark money” concerns. Perhaps its unsurprising that Smith, who adamantly opposed regulating groups like American Edge, was chosen to help run the organization.<br /> ** American Edge Was Criticized From Both The Left And Right. American Edge had critics across the political spectrum. According to Politico, the organization was “shrouded in controversy” after Facebook disclosed its involvement. In June 2020, ten progressive organizations, including Public Citizen and the Tech Transparency Project, sent Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a letter asking him to shut down American Edge. The letter expressed concerns with the organization’s 501(c)4 status and the revolving door between government and the tech industry. On the other side of the political aisle, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley called out the organization for its dark money spending and opposition to antitrust legislation, which was backed by a bipartisan coalition of legislators.<br /> <br /> '''Download Fairness Coalition'''<br /> <br /> * In 2019, Apple Disclosed It Was A Member Of The Download Fairness Coalition, Which Apple Defined As A &quot;Trade Association,&quot; But The Organization Was Previously Housed In The Lobbying Firm Signal Consulting's Office.<br /> * The Download Fairness Coalition's Website is defunct as of April 2021; however archived website records listed Apple, Amazon, and prominent trade association TechNet were members in 2019.<br /> ** Amazon did disclose supporting the Download Fairness Coalition on its 2019 US Political Contribution and Engagement Statement.<br /> <br /> * The group sought a national framework that would effectively override a patchwork of state laws on digital taxation.<br /> * The Coalition disclosed it spent $3,240,000 in federal lobbying between 2011 – 2020.<br /> * Lobbying disclosure records show that the Coalition paid Elevate Government Affairs to lobby on digital taxation issues in 2020.<br /> * The group also paid Signal Consulting $80,000 to lobby on The Digital Goods And Services Tax Fairness Act (HR 1725, S. 765) in 2019. Website archive records and federal lobbying disclosures show that both Signal Consulting and the Coalition resided at 455 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Floor 12, Washington, DC address in 2019.<br /> ** It is unclear if Download Fairness still exists through online research or where it currently resides. Interested parties should request the organization's 2019 – 2020 990 tax forms from the IRS to determine its current state.<br /> <br /> '''Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)'''<br /> <br /> * The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is comprised of, and funded by, Big Tech companies including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.<br /> * CCIA works to defend Big Tech companies from criticism:<br /> ** CCIA created separate organizations to advocate for Big Tech through researchpapers and communications support. These include Springboard and the Disruptive Competition Project. As the House sought to pass antitrust legislation against Big Tech, these organizations argued that there is lots of competition in the tech sector and that the bills would make digital advertising less safe, force platforms to host Neo-Nazi speech, and help China.<br /> ** CCIA criticized lawsuits by the DOJ and state attorneys general against Google, casting them as either partisan actions by Republicans or arguing that there was insufficient evidence.<br /> ** CCIA has repeatedly criticized European regulators for attempting to hold Google accountable and for implementing privacy regulations. CCIA argued that the European Commission sought investigations against Google because of political motives.<br /> ** CCIA reflexively defends Big Tech. CCIA said that breaking up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp would harm consumers, and has funded pro-Google conferences. Their Twitter feed is filled with opinion pieces arguing against antitrust action against Big Tech.<br /> ** CCIA argued that the House antitrust proposals were radical and would harm small businesses and national security. CCIA hired former DNI Dan Coats to argue in multiple publications that antitrust action against Big Tech would benefit China and harm national security.<br /> * CCIA filed numerous Supreme Court amicus briefs in support of Apple, including in the Apple v. Pepper case.<br /> * CCIA’s Policy Counsel is Amazon’s former Policy Counsel.<br /> * From 1998 to 2021, CCIA spent $8,768,705 in federal lobbying expenditures. <br /> <br /> '''Chamber Of Progress'''<br /> <br /> * Chamber of Progress was formed in 2021 by Google’s former top lobbyist, with backing from Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook. The group was formed to back key pieces of the progressive agenda, as a way to get back in lawmakers’ good graces and help fend off tech regulation.<br /> * Chamber of Progress was called out by both sides of the aisle for being a “transparent ploy” to bamboozle lawmakers and camouflage Big Tech’s true intentions.<br /> * Chamber of Progress defended the App Store system and said any proposed changes would worsen the customer experience.<br /> * Chamber of Progress opposed antitrust reform bills in Congress, with the organization drafting a letter signed by 13 different organizations opposing the bills. Chamber of Progress’ talking points against the bills, were called out as scare tactics, and given false ratings from an independent fact checker.<br /> <br /> '''Connected Commerce Council'''<br /> <br /> * Connected Commerce Council (3C) is a small business front group for Big Tech. The group counts Amazon, Facebook and Google as partners.<br /> * The group was formed by Jake Ward, who had previously founded the Application Developers Alliance, another group which counts Google and Facebook as members.<br /> * 3C’s tax filings show its address is listed as the office of the Washington DC lobbying firm it pays to lobby the federal government on its behalf.<br /> * Connected Commerce Council has employed Majority Group’s Robert Ellsworth as its sole federal lobbyist, paying him $1.2 million since 2018.<br /> * Connected Commerce Council pushes small business owners to write letters to policymakers discouraging Big Tech regulation and often provides these small business owners with template language. In one case, 3C was caught by the Washington Post having failed to inform a small business letter writer of the organization’s ties to Big Tech companies like Google.<br /> * In 2019, 3C recruited small business owners to express concern about the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust investigation into Big Tech.<br /> * In 2020, Google partnered with 3C to push out white papers making the case that Big Tech was key to keeping small businesses open during the pandemic.<br /> * 3C also led opposition to the antitrust bills in Congress in 2021 and 2022, flooding social media and newsletters with ads defending Big Tech. The organization’s PR firm also sent talking points to local chambers of commerce for opposing the bills. And 3C arranged meetings between small business owners and members of Congress.<br /> <br /> '''Financial Innovation Now (FIN)'''<br /> <br /> * Financial Innovation Now is a coalition of tech companies operating in the financial services sector. Its members include Amazon, Google and Facebook.<br /> * The group was formed by Brian Peters, a lobbyist for the Franklin Square Group who is registered to lobby the federal government for Amazon, Google and Facebook.<br /> * Financial Innovation Now was formed in 2015 to push back against calls by the big banks for regulation of tech firms getting into the financial services industry, including payments.<br /> * Financial Innovation Now defended Big Tech companies after the CFPB’s order on Big Tech and payments products in Oct. 2021, said Amazon, Google and Facebook deeply value consumer protection and already have practices which exceed US law.<br /> * Financial Innovation Now spent $1.4 million lobbying the federal government since 2019, including $480K in 2021.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_as_the_New_Big_Tobacco&diff=413 2022-03-29T02:40:51Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Republicans and Democrats began to view Big Tech in the light Big Tobacco was, with one saying the comparison was “an appropriate analogy”<br /> <br /> * Lawmakers like Republicans Ken Buck and Cynthia Lummis and Democrat Ed Markey compared Facebook and Big Tech to Big Tobacco. Markey described Instagram as “that first childhood cigarette, meant to get teens hooked early.” Lummis agreed that comparing Facebook and Big Tech to Big Tobacco was an “appropriate analogy.” Republican Rep. Bill Johnston compared Big Tech CEOs to those from large tobacco companies, accusing the tech firms of being equally dangerous to society. Buck compared big tech to big tobacco, saying they were “harming our kids for profit.” Richard Blumenthal, who led a lawsuit against Big Tobacco in the 1990s as AG of CT, said Facebook and Big Tech were facing a “Big Tobacco moment,” comparing Facebook’s strategy papers with those done by Tobacco companies on reaching middle schoolers.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/technology/facebook-big-tobacco-regulation.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Big Tech directly followed in Big Tobacco’s footsteps by funding academic research<br /> ** Big Tobacco had a long history of commissioning and funding academic research to pull focus away from the proven harms of their products. Big Tech similarly started to fund institutions to ensure the “ethical development” of their technology, which led to questions about conflicts of interest and research independence. Researchers from Cornell noted that Big Tech and Big Tobacco’s funding of scientific research and development were similar in both industries: “Pump vast sums of money” into researching the problems they were creating.&lt;ref&gt;https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.13676&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Both Big Tech and Big Tobacco wanted to influence research to ensure their industries sustained support and were seen as socially responsible. Researchers from Cornell said Big Tobacco invested in Academia in order to influence the research questions of those studying tobacco, hoping to find friendly academics who could be leveraged and recast the companies as socially responsible. Big Tobacco’s funding agencies worked to maintain an impartial and scientific image, even as it mainly funded research that was not about tobacco’s health impacts.<br /> ** Much like Big Tobacco, the Academics that Big Tech invested in routinely failed to disclose their funding from Big Tech, which created a false impression of independence. The whole goal of funding the research was to exploit the confidence that is had in academia and research, because Think Tanks and organizations were treated as “neutral arbiters” by journalists and lawmakers.<br /> ** At Big Tech funded agencies, public relations officials and lawyers were involved in plotting the overall research direction and tone. Internal Google documents directed scientists to “strike a positive tone” in their research. Further internal memos from Google showed that the company intended to use friendly academics as a key aim in its strategy to lobby against the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Big Tobacco has given hundreds of millions to research over the years and their efforts spanned across the globe. Big tobacco started its own research group, The Tobacco Industry Research Committee, in 1964 and pumped more than $130 million into the effort by 1986.<br /> ** Big Tobacco continued this trend of investing in research across the globe, giving tens of thousands of Pounds to two think tanks in the UK that advised the government on Tobacco laws. The two think tanks criticized plans to force retailers to sell cigarettes in unbranded cartons, which was a measure supported by cancer charities and opposed by Big Tobacco. In 2019, it was reported that Tobacco companies had contributed to at least 106 think tanks in two dozen countries. The think tanks they contributed to were found to oppose plain cigarette packaging, had written to regulators in support of new tobacco products or promoted industry funded research. Big Tobacco also contributed to The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Americans For Tax Reform. As Big Tech faced pressure from proposed tech legislation, they significantly increased their spending on outside organizations, giving to nearly 771 third party organizations since 2015. A significant spike in funding of outside groups by Big Tech after federal and state officials increased scrutiny on their anti-competitive behaviors. Amazon went from contributing to 45 outside organizations in 2015 to 251 outside organizations in 2020. Google more than doubled the amount of outside groups it gave to in 2018 and 2019 compared to 2017 as it faced pressures from California’s consumer privacy law. All of this increased spending by Big Tech put a heavy pressure on academic staff to seek external sources of funding.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2019/jan/23/free-market-thinktanks-tobacco-industry&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Who Big Tech gives to and how much they contributed is murky, as think tanks and nonprofits aren’t required to disclose their funding. Despite Amazon, Facebook and Google voluntarily disclosing who they contributed to, the companies did not divulge the amounts of their contributions.<br /> ** However, it was found that in the past 5 years, six leading academic institutes in the EU had taken tens of millions of pounds of funding from Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft to research issues linked to the tech firm’s business models. The Institute For Ethics In Artificial Intelligence at the Technical University of Munich received a $7.5 million grant from Facebook in 2019. The Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin accepted almost 14 million Euros from Google since it was founded in 2012.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/big-tech/2021/07/how-google-quietly-funds-europe-s-leading-tech-policy-institutes&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** In the U.S., Big Tech individually contributed to various renowned and highly influential think tanks and nonprofits. Those think tanks and nonprofits included but are not limited to the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, International Center for Law &amp; Economics, the Information Technology &amp; Innovation foundation and the Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University.<br /> ** Big Tech was rewarded handsomely for their contributions to nonprofits and think tanks. Some lobbyists, scholars and think tank officials argued that Google’s donations to nonprofit groups helped explain why it had avoided damaging regulatory and enforcement decisions in the U.S. Further, the major nonprofits that Big Tech had contributed to helped facilitate introductions between the government and Big Tech.<br /> ** The Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University had trained more than 850 foreign judges and regulators on Antitrust at their seminars.<br /> ** While not all of the nonprofits and think tanks held events on behalf of Big Tech, many did advocate for Big Tech in other ways. The Cato Institute argued publicly that people should be “extremely skeptical about predictions of entrenched monopoly power” for big tech. The Progressive Policy Institute president and founder Will Marshall published an op-ed arguing against breaking up Big Tech monopolies while simultaneously calling them “innovative and successful.”<br /> * Big Tobacco was a lobbying “juggernaut” that invented the special interest lobbying model Big Tech used <br /> ** In 1998, the Big Tobacco spent nearly $73 million on federal lobbying and employed over 200 lobbyists. When adjusted for inflation, the #73 million in 1998 equated to $122 million in 2021. The Dean of Harvard’s graduate school of arts and sciences said Big Tobacco had “invested in the kind of special interest lobbying” that characterized the late 20th and early 21st century American politics. Big Tobacco was known for their “giant spending” and effective lobbying.<br /> ** Big Tobacco was said to have a “substantial” presence on Capitol Hill and had a lobbying effort so large it could only be described as a “juggernaut” by OpenSecrets. The Dean of Harvard’s graduate school of arts and sciences said Big Tobacco spent “boatloads” of money in Congress to prevent regulation as more information became public about the harm their products caused. Still to this day, Big Tobacco employed a massive amount of lobbyists, with Altria employing at least 409 lobbyists in 49 states and Reynolds employing 257 lobbyists in 39 states.<br /> ** Big Tobacco were also big spenders politically in the 90’s and early 2000’s. In 1996, the tobacco industry contributed more than $10 million to political campaigns. In 1998, they contributed more than $8.6 million. In 2000, Big Tobacco again spent more than $8.6 million on political campaigns. And in 2002, Big Tobacco spent $9.29 million on political campaigns. Reynolds American and Altria Group also donated $1.5 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration.<br /> * Big Tech invested in lobbying to the same degree that Big Tobacco did and have similarly become Washington lobbyists biggest cash cow<br /> ** A June 2021 NY Times headline read “Tech Giants, Fearful of Proposals to Curb Them, Blitz Washington With Lobbying.” And in 2020, Big Tech spent more on lobbying than any other industry at a combined $51.72 million. Facebook spent the most out of any company in 2020 and the same year spent the most it ever had on lobbying: $19.68 million. Following in second was Amazon, who spent $17.86 million on lobbying, which was also the most the company had ever spent in a year on lobbying. Google spent $7.53 million on lobbying and Apple spent $6.6 million on lobbying in 2020. When asked what they were looking to achieve with their lobbying, none of the tec companies would detail their targets.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/technology/amazon-apple-google-facebook-antitrust-bills.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tobacco created the model for Big Tech’s pre-empting legislation and regulation Big Tobacco offered to fund research and write legislation that would carve ou several loopholes and prevent stricter rules in the future<br /> ** Starting in the 1980s, Big Tobacco worked to pre-empt legislation with their own corporate-written legislation, a trend that continued into recent policy debates over the legal age to buy tobacco products. Big Tobacco had worked to pre-empt laws to raise the legal age to buy smoking products from 18 to 21 by pushing new legislation that would make enforcement difficult and nullify tougher local laws. A spokesman for the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids argued that Big Tobacco were “masters at proposing or supporting a bill that looked good on the surface but often included provisions that [were] harmful to public health.”<br /> ** By pre-empting legislation, Tobacco was able to halt any local efforts to limit how tobacco used. It was said that by pre-empting legislation with their own corporate-backed bills, Big Tobacco could effectively tie the hands of city governments who wanted to limit tobacco use further. Tobacco companies had been working to pre-empt legislation for decades, including pre-empting versions of the Clean Indoor Air Acts in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1994, a Philip Morris Employee even wrote that the company was “dead serious about achieving pre-emption in all 50 states.”<br /> * Big Tech followed suit and began supporting legislation they felt they could control to build goodwill after scandals ravaged the industry<br /> ** Following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook appeared to back some government regulation. The company launched a new campaign that offered concessions on the Big Tech regulatory debate to generate some goodwill while trying to reframe the larger debate on its own terms. Zuckerberg said in testimony that he welcomed privacy and misinformation regulation as long as it was the “right regulation.”<br /> ** Zuckerberg went so far as to call on congress to make “thoughtful reform” of Section 230, which safeguarded tech platforms from being held liable for content individual users posted. Zuckerberg said a company’s liability protection under Section 230 should be conditional on their ability to prove they can moderate harmful content – regardless if it successfully removed all harmful content. Zuckerberg's proposal for Section 230 immunity reforms “could theoretically shore up Facebook’s power” as it forced smaller social media companies and startups to develop costly content moderation systems. However, Facebook executives testified before Congress that they wanted Congress to pre-empt local laws that likely included stricter privacy protections than a federal bill.<br /> ** Ironically, just weeks before Zuckerberg’s 2018 testimony, Facebook poured hundreds of thousands into fighting a privacy ballot initiative in California. Facebook gave $200,000 to a PAC dedicated to defeating “a state ballot initiative that would expand Californian’s privacy controls. After his testimony, Facebook withdrew support for the group and then declined to say if they were involved in other efforts to oppose privacy legislation.<br /> * Big Tech also used more subtle means to influence policy, like leaning heavily and quietly on trade associations.<br /> ** A Big Tech lobbyist admitted that there was “strength in numbers” and said Big Tech could use trade associations to “do a little bit of heavy lifting.” Big Tech had increasingly been leaning on industry associations to influence public policy in Washington. Lobbyist Kate Mills, a partner at a Amazon-hired lobbying firm, admitted that Big Tech’s strategy involved leaning heavily and quietly on trade associations.<br /> ** Amazon, Facebook and Google funded a bevy of political groups that had helped push positive polling and engaged in other “fingerprint-free tactics” designed to deter regulators seeking to break up or penalize the industry. An advocacy group funded by Big Tech had secretly written an op-ed for a local small businessman in Arizona that opposed the state’s investigation into Google. The small business owner was unaware Google had backed the group that approached him to publish the op-ed.<br /> ** In a single year, Amazon reported spending $6.36 million on state focused “government relations efforts” in 44 states.<br /> <br /> * Big Tech supported a wide range of industry associations that advocated and lobbied for them in D.C.<br /> ** Big Tech has contributed to a wide range of industry associations, including but not limited to NetChoice, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Consumer Technology Association, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, TechNet, The Small Business &amp; Entrepreneurship Council, The Internet Association and ComPITA<br /> ** The various organizations pushed for Big Tech’s goals and defended them when they came under fire. NetChoice, “Tech’s most aggressive lobbying presence in D.C.” was a vocal opponent of antitrust action against Google. NetChoice attacked Texas’ lawsuit against Google’s anticompetitive advertising practices and attacked the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Google.<br /> ** The Consumer Technology Association spent $10 million on lobbying for Big Tech and opposed local tech regulations on their behalf. The Consumer Technology Association counted Facebook, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon as members. The group opposed proposed right to repair laws in Nevada and elsewhere.<br /> ** Other organizations provided extra support for Big Tech when they were railing against antitrust or privacy legislation. The Progressive Policy Institute joined Google, Facebook and Amazon (all of which were donors) when the companies were fighting back against Senator Warren’s call to break up Big Tech. Facebook’s Lobbyist co-chaired a technology council at the Illinois Chamber of Commerce as the Chamber was backing the gutting of an online privacy law.<br /> ** Facebook turned to a lower-profile trade groups such as The Internet Association and CompTIA to help block privacy legislation. 21 days after a judge ruled against Facebook in a biometric privacy act lawsuit, a Facebook backed law weakening Illinois’ biometric privacy act was introduced in the Illinois state legislature. Facebook and CompTIA were directly described as “having a hand in blocking or weakening biometric privacy bills in Montana, Washington, And Illinois.”<br /> ** CompTIA pushed for changes to the biometric information privacy act on Facebook’s behalf, along with donating to the Republican Party of Texas, where the Republican Attorney General was the sole enforcer of the State’s Biometric Privacy Regulations<br /> ** In 2020, Facebook launched an astroturf organization to convince federal regulators that Facebook was crucial to free speech. Facebook created American Edge to combat potential federal regulations through advertising and other means. After American Edge was formed as a nonprofit organization, it set up an accompanying social welfare group, which was a common tactic used to obscure donors. American Edge said it was important to create policies that don’t weaken companies that “share American values” as they competed globally.<br /> * Much like Big Tobacco was in the 90s, Big Tech became mammoth political donors, collectively spending more than $100 million between 2016-2020<br /> ** Most of Big Tech’s campaign contributions went towards Democrats, which increased year by year as Democrats grew louder about tech reform. Between 2016-2020, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, contributed more than $44 million in political donations. Between 2018-2020, Amazon contributed more than $26 million to political campaigns. Apple contributed more than $12 million to political campaigns between 2016-2020 and Facebook contributed more than $18 million to political campaigns between 2016-2020. Facebook also donated to all four co-sponsors of an Illinois bill to weaken the 2008 biometric information privacy act.<br /> * Adding to their influence campaigns, Big Tech followed Big Tobacco’s playbook of employing revolving door techniques both Big Tobacco and Big Tech have had former employees in high level government positions and have hired former high level government officials<br /> ** Big Tobacco found a way to deeply ingratiate themselves with the Trump and Bush administrations. Several top Bush administration staffers had backgrounds in Tobacco, including Senior Adviser Karl Rove. Vice President Pence had extensive ties to the Tobacco industry, receiving $39k in donations from RJ Reynolds and more than $60k from the industry group National Association of Convenience Stores. Senator Blumenthal noted that many of Trump’s appointees had “deep commitments to the Tobacco industry.” Former head of the FDA Scott Gottlieb worked for the e-cigarette company Kure and condemned the influence of Anti-tobacco “activists” in the FDA. The former Solicitor General Noel Francisco represented RJ Reynolds on behalf of the corporate law firm Jones Day prior to joining the federal government.<br /> ** Big Tobacco also hired former Trump Officials as lobbyists. RJ Reynolds hired former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price’s deputy Chief of Staff as their lobbyists.<br /> ** Google had an ally in the DOJ’s antitrust division during the Trump Administration and a former FTC commissioner joined a law firm Google had hired. Makan Delrahim, who led the DOJ antitrust division under Donald Trump, formerly worked on behalf of Google. After leaving office, former FTC commissioner Joshua Wright joined a law firm that represented Google before the FTC.<br /> * Big Tobacco and Big Tech had a habit of running from their names after losing public trust in 2003, Philip Morris changed its name to ‘Altria Group’ after public started to feel their name “meant death”<br /> ** Philip Morris said the name change brought “clarity” to its corporation and operating companies. In 2003, Philip Morris changed its name to ‘Altria Group’. The company said the name change brought “clarity” to its corporate structure and the relationship between the parent company to its operating companies. Philip Morris’ Senior Vice President at the time said “When people say ‘Philip Morris’, people don’t know which company you’re talking about [...] We’re more than a tobacco company.”<br /> ** Philip Morris also owned Kraft Foods along with their tobacco company<br /> ** In reality, the name change was a financial decision brought as a way to distance the company from the “death” people associated with them. A former FDA commissioner said Philip Morris was “running away from tobacco” with their name change. The company’s connection with Tobacco had long depressed its stock price, despite being the largest packaged goods company. To consumers, Philip Morris meant tobacco, and tobacco meant death.<br /> * Facebook planned to change its company name to ‘Meta’ after facing fire for spreading misinformation<br /> ** Facebook planned to change the name of its company to ‘Meta’ as a signal of its ambition to be known for more than social media. Facebook was reportedly investing in what it called the ‘Metaverse’ which was a digital world where people used various devices to engage with each other in a 3d environment.<br /> ** The name change came after internal memos leaked showing the company knew about the damage it caused society. At the time of the name change, Facebook was facing some of the most intense scrutiny in its history after an internal whistleblower had leaked internal documents showing Facebook knew about the harmful effects it was having.<br /> ** Much like Philip Morris, Facebook’s renaming was seen as a way to distance itself from the social networking controversies it was facing. TV personality Jim Cramer kind of let the cat out of the bag when he said the secret of Facebook’s valuation was because of its “habit of reinvention” Facebook’s name change was seen as directly resembling Philip Morris’ decision to change their name after controversies plagued the company. Fast Company said “for a company that brisle[d] at references to its services being akin to cigarettes, taking a page from the Big Tobacco playbook [was] a stunner.” But at the end of the day, the name change would have no impact on Facebook’s operations or executive structure. The change was largely cosmetic.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.fastcompany.com/90424503/facebook-google-amazon-are-ramping-up-their-secretive-influence-campaigns-in-dc&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tech spent more on federal lobbying from 2010-202 than the nation’s largest banks from 2000-2010 or Big Tobacco from 1996-1999<br /> ** Since 2000, the four largest Big Tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Alphabet/Google, and Facebook – have spent $465,026,307 on federal lobbying. $434,474,221 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> ** Additionally, nine groups that the four Big Tech companies fund have spent $98,061,827 on federal lobbying since 2000. $80,400,019 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> ** Big Tech’s federal lobbying total eclipses that of other major toxic industries: Since 2010, the nation’s largest opioid manufacturers have spent $282,292,834 on federal lobbying. America’s seven largest banks in the leadup to the financial crisis spent $194,193,858 on federal lobbying from 2000 to 2010. From 1996 to 1999, the nation’s largest tobacco companies spent $155,750,398 on federal lobbying, or $261,306,596 in 2021 dollars.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Trade/Proxy_Organizations_funded_by_Big_Tech&diff=412 2022-03-29T02:37:40Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> '''TechNet'''<br /> <br /> * TechNet Functioned As A &quot;Political Shield&quot; For Members, Including Google And Apple, To Push Their Agenda <br /> ** TechNet is a trade association for technology CEOs and executives, including Google and Apple. <br /> ** TechNet held annual lobbying conferences so members, including Google and Apple, could push their agenda on politicians. <br /> ** Wired on TechNet: &quot;Tech's most powerful advocacy group.&quot; <br /> ** Wired: TechNet &quot;has grown to become the valley's strongest fundraising network and lobbying voice in Washington, backed by Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others.&quot; <br /> ** Tech Crunch: TechNet functioned as a &quot;political shield&quot; for its big tech members, including Apple<br /> <br /> '''ACT - the App Association'''<br /> <br /> * Apple Funded ACT Pushed Apple's Agenda, Causing An Alternative App Developer Association To Be Created Specifically To Avoid The Conflict Of Interest <br /> ** Apple funded the ACT- The App Association. <br /> ** ACT attacked the Supreme Court's decision on Apple versus Pepper, taking Apple's side in the case.<br /> *** ACT took Apple's side in the Supreme Court decision Apple versus Pepper, arguing the decision &quot;robbed developers of their autonomy and independence by categorizing them as mere suppliers or manufacturers to platforms.&quot; <br /> *** In reality, the decision allowed consumers to sue Apple for monopolistic behavior in the Apple app store. <br /> <br /> * ACT's funding from Apple caused an alternative trade organization to be created independent from the big tech funders and the conflict of interest. <br /> ** ACT member Southern DNA provided no portfolio of work on its website and primarily used its social media to promote ACT's lobbying efforts.<br /> <br /> '''Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)'''<br /> <br /> * Apple, Amazon, And Google Were Members Of Electronic Transactions Association (ETA), A Trade Association That Spent Millions In Federal Lobbying.<br /> ** In 7 years, the Association reported $6,720,000 in lobbying costs -- $1,120,000 of that came in just 2020.<br /> ** ETA reported lobbying on H.R. 4813 (Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act), which sought to bar Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon from providing banking services.<br /> ** ETAPAC contributed $96,300 to Federal House and Senate candidates in the 2019/20 cycle.<br /> <br /> '''NetChoice'''<br /> <br /> * NetChoice Attacked Lawsuits That Directly And Indirectly Threatened Organization Member Google<br /> ** NetChoice aggressively defended Apple's app store business model, a business model that mirrored organization member Google's app store.<br /> *** Google is a member of NetChoice.<br /> *** NetChoice aggressively defended Apple's app store business model. NetChoice Vice President described the apple app store as &quot;an innovative ecosystem that helped create the hypercompetitive app economy.&quot; NetChoice Vice President: &quot;Apple's defense illustrates a commitment to an ecosystem that fosters competition, user ease, and up-and-coming developers.&quot; A study found Apple's app store was functionally the same as Google's app store business model.<br /> *** NetChoice aggressively and repeatedly opposed lawsuits against Google.<br /> <br /> '''Consumer Technology Association (CTA)'''<br /> <br /> * Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Counted All Four – Amazon, Facebook, Apple, And Alphabet (Google) As Members. <br /> ** CTA spent $10,370,000 on federal lobbying in 2019 – 2020 alone. <br /> ** CTA fought Right to Repair laws that were under consideration in 25 state legislatures. Right to Repair proposals required tech manufacturers to provide independent repair shops access to parts and schematics to fix devices like computers and phones.<br /> *** CTA argued such policies threatened brands' reputation; poorly done repairs by unauthorized dealers or substandard parts would damage the public's perception of product quality. <br /> <br /> '''Developers Alliance'''<br /> <br /> * Facebook And Google Were Members Of The Developers Alliance, Which Claimed To Represent Some 70,000 App Developers.<br /> ** Developers Alliance spent $1,018,100 on federal lobbying between 2013 – 2020. $125,000 of that spending came in 2019 – 2020.<br /> <br /> * Developers Alliance argued that traditional market risks were irrelevant in digital platform competition and that consumers benefit from a &quot;functioning market&quot; in which Apps were channeled into limited, controlled platforms.<br /> * Developers Alliance argued that most developers were satisfied with the existing platform options.<br /> * Developers Alliance opposed 2021 legislation in Arizona (House Bill 2005) and Rhode Island (House Bill 6055).<br /> ** Arizona's House Bill 2005 offered app developers the option to use alternative payment methods to circumvent the 15 – 30% cut Apple and Google 15 – 30% take from App Sales on their platforms.<br /> ** Rhode Island's 6055 bill banned app distribution platforms from requiring developers to use their platform exclusively to list their apps and allowed app developers the option to use alternative payment methods. <br /> <br /> '''Internet Association'''<br /> <br /> * Google, Facebook, And Amazon Were Members Of Internet Association.<br /> ** Amazon disclosed it contributed $30,000 To Internet Association's California PAC in 2020.<br /> ** Internet Association reported spending more than $13.9 million in federal lobbying over a 7-year period between 2013 – 2020.<br /> ** Internet Association alleged attempts to regulate the sharing economy – like Amazon Flex – were a tactic by &quot;legacy corporations&quot; to &quot;stifle&quot; the competition.<br /> <br /> '''Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)'''<br /> <br /> * Portable Rechargeable Battery Association Counted Apple And Amazon As Members.<br /> ** PRBA has not registered federal lobbying activity since 2013.<br /> ** PRBA hosted annual member regulatory meetings, including one in November 2020 that included Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency officials as featured speakers, effectively giving its members direct access.<br /> ** PRBA submitted public comments to federal regulatory bodies.<br /> ** PRBA's Executive Director George Kerchner directly influenced both federal and state public policy; in 2019, he was appointed to the US Department of Transportation Lithium Battery Safety Committee and the California Environmental Protection Agency's Lithium-Ion Car Battery Recycling Advisory Group.<br /> <br /> '''New York Coalition for Independent Work'''<br /> <br /> * In December 2020, TechNet And Internet Association (whose membership included Amazon) announced they were working with the New York Coalition for Independent Work.<br /> ** The Coalition claimed to work on behalf of app-based contractors to defend their right to flexibility while also working to provide them with benefits. The Coalition ran Letters to the Editors and Op-eds in local newspapers supposedly written by ride-sharing workers defending the flexibility of gig-based jobs and downplaying the poor pay.<br /> ** The Coalition pushed New York to adopt a California Proposition 22 style policy that defined sharing economy workers like Uber and Lyft drivers as contractors instead of employees. Proposition 22 was a massive win for sharing economy companies.  As contractors, sharing economy workers did not have rights to minimum wage or other key legal protections that come with being classified as an employee. Proposition 22 provided contractors with the right to access healthcare through independent entities that their employers only partially funded. Proposition 22 benefited Amazon Flex.<br /> <br /> '''American Edge'''<br /> <br /> * In 2020 Facebook Launched American Edge, A Dark-Money Astroturf Group Designed To Combat Potential Federal Regulations.<br /> * American Edge obscured its donors by forming as a nonprofit, then launching an affiliated social welfare group that could legally push political messages through advertising and other means.<br /> <br /> * American Edge was formed to oppose antitrust legislation and promote big tech interests amid growing scrutiny of U.S. tech companies and political pressure to implement regulations.<br /> * Despite presenting itself as a grassroots nonprofit, American Edge was created and funded by Facebook. The tech giant was reportedly “critical” and worked “behind the scenes” to launch American Edge. Facebook even admitted its involvement with the organization. Company spokesman Andy Stone said Facebook was “leading an effort to start this coalition.” Facebook also reported donating to American Edge on its website. Notably, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg setup similar 501(c)4 organizations in the past to promote the company’s interests.<br /> * American Edge thwarted transparency and declined to name the company’s backers other than Facebook. In May 2020, John Ashbrook, a consultant advising American Edge, declined to name any of the organization’s corporate backers when asked. The group went on to release an August 2020 ad featuring prominent tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Zoom.<br /> * American Edge Coordinated With Facebook Using Various Strategies Designed To Oppose Antitrust Legislation And Protect Big Tech Interests. American Edge employed a variety of strategies aimed at opposing antitrust legislation and protecting big tech, many of which were coordinated with Facebook. <br /> ** Advertising was the most prominent strategy American Edge and Facebook used to promote their message. According to digital ad data from OpenSecrets, American Edge spent $265,000 on Facebook ads about technology policy from September 2020 to June 2021. Wired noted that American Edge and Facebook specifically “pump[ed] ads into the feeds of the DC policy audience” in an effort to influence legislation. According to the Tech Transparency Project, American Edge and Facebook launched an “ad blitz” ahead of Facebook CEO’s Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress.<br /> ** American Edge and Facebook also coordinated to sponsor newsletters in a variety of publications, including Politico, the Hill, Axios, and Punchbowl News. Newsletters typically allowed sponsors to insert a message of their choice in the digest. During a five-week period in 2021, Facebook and American Edge sponsored a combined 91 newsletters across publications. Notably, the uptick in sponsorships came ahead of Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress.<br /> * In addition to their coordination on advertising and newsletters, Facebook and American Edge used similar lines of argument to oppose antitrust regulations. Companies like Facebook and organizations like American Edge argued that antitrust reform could hinder U.S. competition with China. American Edge promoted this idea in an October m2021 report, as well as op-eds it dispatched across various publications around the country. Critics called the tactic a “thinly veiled effort to dodge regulation and ward off would-be backers.”<br /> * American Edge Assembled A Leadership Team With Immense Political Influence And Close Ties To Big Tech. American Edge assembled a team of advisors with political influence and close ties to big tech. According to the Washington Post, American Edge “[came] together with the aid of top Democratic and Republican operatives.” Its paid advisors were comprised of former members of Congress and political officials, tasked with influencing their friends and former colleagues to uphold big tech interests. Moreover, many advisors held personal financial interests in big tech’s success.<br /> ** Frances Townsend, a former White House Counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser, served on American Edge’s National Security Advisory Board. Townsend had connections to numerous other organizations that relied on big tech for funding. Townsend was on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council, which was funded by Facebook and Google. Notably, in October 2021, American Edge partnered with the Atlantic Council on a report critical of China’s influence over technology standards-setting. Townsend was also a member of the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which was funded by Apple and Google, as well as the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, which was funded by Microsoft, Facebook, and Google.<br /> ** Another American Edge advisory board member with ties to big tech was Democratic former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. As a Senator, Heitkamp accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from tech companies. Per OpenSecrets, Heitkamp’s fourth largest donor sector throughout her career was “communications/electronics,” and her third biggest donor was Google’s parent company, Alphabet. From 2013 to 2018, Heitkamp’s top overall donor was Google, which gave the Senator more than $131,000. Over that same period, Facebook gave Heitkamp $10,000 in donations. Although she is no longer a Senator, Heitkamp may still have a financial stake in big tech’s success. As of her most recent personal financial disclosure from 2019, Heitkamp reported holding stock in Apple and Google. Additionally, in 2019, Heitkamp launched an advocacy organization called the One Country Project in coordination with the lobbying firm Forbes Tate. The two groups reportedly had the same address, and One Country’s executive director was a partner at Forbes Tate. According to the Forbes Tate website, tech lobbying was one of the firm’s areas of specialty. From 2012 to 2014, Forbes Tate earned $200,000 lobbying on behalf of Amazon. In 2020, a coalition of progressive organizations wrote the Biden Administration a letter opposing Heitkamp’s consideration for USDA secretary. The letter noted Heitkamp’s ties to big tech through One Country and Forbes Tate. <br /> ** Republican former U.S. Representative and American Edge Advisory Board Member Greg Walden also had ties to big tech. According to OpenSecrets, “communications/electronics” was Walden’s second biggest donor sector throughout his career. From 2012 to 2019, Walden accepted $31,000 in donations from Facebook. As a Congressman, Walden was a friend to Facebook. He chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and called for “light-touch regulation, not heavy-handed government” when it came to regulating the tech industry. Additionally, Walden represented a district in Oregon where Facebook did “a lot of business” and received big tax breaks for data centers. Slate pointed out the tax breaks as a potential conflict of interest when Walden led Mark Zuckerberg’s hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.<br /> ** Like Walden, American Edge board member and Republican former Governor of New Mexico Susana Martinez offered Facebook big economic incentives to build data centers in her state. As governor, Martinez announced that Facebook would expand its data center in Los Lunas, New Mexico. Facebook entertained bids to build data centers in both New Mexico and Utah, but the company ultimately selected New Mexico after being offered tax breaks on billions of dollars in computer equipment and annual payments topping out at $500,000 instead of property taxes.<br /> ** Other American Edge Advisory Board members with tech ties included Democratic former Rep. Chris Carney and Republican former Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Since leaving office, Carney has worked at the lobbying firm Nossaman LLP. In October 2019, Carney registered to lobby on behalf of NMR Consulting, an information technology company that partnered with Microsoft. Chambliss also had big tech ties. According to a 2014 Los Angeles Times report, “Tech execs who look more like old-school Fortune 500 barons are coming out of the closet, opening the checkbooks for old-fashioned GOP politicians such as ... Sen. Saxby Chambliss.” Additionally, while we don’t have information about Chambliss’s finances since he left office, he held stock in Apple per his most recent financial disclosure report filed in 2015.<br /> ** Finally, Bradley Smith, an American Edge director and former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, did not have apparent ties to big tech, but had previous experience that would be favorable to 501(c)4 organizations trying to conceal their donors. After resigning from the FEC in 2005, Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that opposed strengthening campaign finance laws. As of December 2021, Smith still chaired the organization (though it was renamed the Institute for Free Speech in 2017). In 2014, Smith’s organization opposed a proposed IRS Rule that would limit spending by 501(c)4 organizations in response to “dark money” concerns. Perhaps its unsurprising that Smith, who adamantly opposed regulating groups like American Edge, was chosen to help run the organization.<br /> ** American Edge Was Criticized From Both The Left And Right. American Edge had critics across the political spectrum. According to Politico, the organization was “shrouded in controversy” after Facebook disclosed its involvement. In June 2020, ten progressive organizations, including Public Citizen and the Tech Transparency Project, sent Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a letter asking him to shut down American Edge. The letter expressed concerns with the organization’s 501(c)4 status and the revolving door between government and the tech industry. On the other side of the political aisle, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley called out the organization for its dark money spending and opposition to antitrust legislation, which was backed by a bipartisan coalition of legislators.<br /> <br /> '''Download Fairness Coalition'''<br /> <br /> * In 2019, Apple Disclosed It Was A Member Of The Download Fairness Coalition, Which Apple Defined As A &quot;Trade Association,&quot; But The Organization Was Previously Housed In The Lobbying Firm Signal Consulting's Office.<br /> * The Download Fairness Coalition's Website is defunct as of April 2021; however archived website records listed Apple, Amazon, and prominent trade association TechNet were members in 2019.<br /> ** Amazon did disclose supporting the Download Fairness Coalition on its 2019 US Political Contribution and Engagement Statement.<br /> <br /> * The group sought a national framework that would effectively override a patchwork of state laws on digital taxation.<br /> * The Coalition disclosed it spent $3,240,000 in federal lobbying between 2011 – 2020.<br /> * Lobbying disclosure records show that the Coalition paid Elevate Government Affairs to lobby on digital taxation issues in 2020.<br /> * The group also paid Signal Consulting $80,000 to lobby on The Digital Goods And Services Tax Fairness Act (HR 1725, S. 765) in 2019. Website archive records and federal lobbying disclosures show that both Signal Consulting and the Coalition resided at 455 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Floor 12, Washington, DC address in 2019.<br /> ** It is unclear if Download Fairness still exists through online research or where it currently resides. Interested parties should request the organization's 2019 – 2020 990 tax forms from the IRS to determine its current state.<br /> <br /> '''Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)'''<br /> <br /> * The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is comprised of, and funded by, Big Tech companies including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.<br /> * CCIA works to defend Big Tech companies from criticism:<br /> ** CCIA created separate organizations to advocate for Big Tech through researchpapers and communications support. These include Springboard and the Disruptive Competition Project. As the House sought to pass antitrust legislation against Big Tech, these organizations argued that there is lots of competition in the tech sector and that the bills would make digital advertising less safe, force platforms to host Neo-Nazi speech, and help China.<br /> ** CCIA criticized lawsuits by the DOJ and state attorneys general against Google, casting them as either partisan actions by Republicans or arguing that there was insufficient evidence.<br /> ** CCIA has repeatedly criticized European regulators for attempting to hold Google accountable and for implementing privacy regulations. CCIA argued that the European Commission sought investigations against Google because of political motives.<br /> ** CCIA reflexively defends Big Tech. CCIA said that breaking up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp would harm consumers, and has funded pro-Google conferences. Their Twitter feed is filled with opinion pieces arguing against antitrust action against Big Tech.<br /> ** CCIA argued that the House antitrust proposals were radical and would harm small businesses and national security. CCIA hired former DNI Dan Coats to argue in multiple publications that antitrust action against Big Tech would benefit China and harm national security.<br /> * CCIA filed numerous Supreme Court amicus briefs in support of Apple, including in the Apple v. Pepper case.<br /> * CCIA’s Policy Counsel is Amazon’s former Policy Counsel.<br /> * From 1998 to 2021, CCIA spent $8,768,705 in federal lobbying expenditures. <br /> <br /> '''Chamber Of Progress'''<br /> <br /> * Chamber of Progress was formed in 2021 by Google’s former top lobbyist, with backing from Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook. The group was formed to back key pieces of the progressive agenda, as a way to get back in lawmakers’ good graces and help fend off tech regulation.<br /> * Chamber of Progress was called out by both sides of the aisle for being a “transparent ploy” to bamboozle lawmakers and camouflage Big Tech’s true intentions.<br /> * Chamber of Progress defended the App Store system and said any proposed changes would worsen the customer experience.<br /> * Chamber of Progress opposed antitrust reform bills in Congress, with the organization drafting a letter signed by 13 different organizations opposing the bills. Chamber of Progress’ talking points against the bills, were called out as scare tactics, and given false ratings from an independent fact checker.<br /> <br /> '''Connected Commerce Council'''<br /> <br /> * Connected Commerce Council (3C) is a small business front group for Big Tech. The group counts Amazon, Facebook and Google as partners.<br /> * The group was formed by Jake Ward, who had previously founded the Application Developers Alliance, another group which counts Google and Facebook as members.<br /> * 3C’s tax filings show its address is listed as the office of the Washington DC lobbying firm it pays to lobby the federal government on its behalf.<br /> * Connected Commerce Council has employed Majority Group’s Robert Ellsworth as its sole federal lobbyist, paying him $1.2 million since 2018.<br /> * Connected Commerce Council pushes small business owners to write letters to policymakers discouraging Big Tech regulation and often provides these small business owners with template language. In one case, 3C was caught by the Washington Post having failed to inform a small business letter writer of the organization’s ties to Big Tech companies like Google.<br /> * In 2019, 3C recruited small business owners to express concern about the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust investigation into Big Tech.<br /> * In 2020, Google partnered with 3C to push out white papers making the case that Big Tech was key to keeping small businesses open during the pandemic.<br /> * 3C also led opposition to the antitrust bills in Congress in 2021 and 2022, flooding social media and newsletters with ads defending Big Tech. The organization’s PR firm also sent talking points to local chambers of commerce for opposing the bills. And 3C arranged meetings between small business owners and members of Congress.<br /> <br /> '''Financial Innovation Now (FIN)'''<br /> <br /> * Financial Innovation Now is a coalition of tech companies operating in the financial services sector. Its members include Amazon, Google and Facebook.<br /> * The group was formed by Brian Peters, a lobbyist for the Franklin Square Group who is registered to lobby the federal government for Amazon, Google and Facebook.<br /> * Financial Innovation Now was formed in 2015 to push back against calls by the big banks for regulation of tech firms getting into the financial services industry, including payments.<br /> * Financial Innovation Now defended Big Tech companies after the CFPB’s order on Big Tech and payments products in Oct. 2021, said Amazon, Google and Facebook deeply value consumer protection and already have practices which exceed US law.<br /> * Financial Innovation Now spent $1.4 million lobbying the federal government since 2019, including $480K in 2021.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_as_the_New_Big_Tobacco&diff=411 2022-03-26T22:50:20Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Republicans and Democrats began to view Big Tech in the light Big Tobacco was, with one saying the comparison was “an appropriate analogy”<br /> <br /> * Lawmakers like Republicans Ken Buck and Cynthia Lummis and Democrat Ed Markey compared Facebook and Big Tech to Big Tobacco. Markey described Instagram as “that first childhood cigarette, meant to get teens hooked early.” Lummis agreed that comparing Facebook and Big Tech to Big Tobacco was an “appropriate analogy.” Republican Rep. Bill Johnston compared Big Tech CEOs to those from large tobacco companies, accusing the tech firms of being equally dangerous to society. Buck compared big tech to big tobacco, saying they were “harming our kids for profit.” Richard Blumenthal, who led a lawsuit against Big Tobacco in the 1990s as AG of CT, said Facebook and Big Tech were facing a “Big Tobacco moment,” comparing Facebook’s strategy papers with those done by Tobacco companies on reaching middle schoolers.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/technology/facebook-big-tobacco-regulation.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Big Tech directly followed in Big Tobacco’s footsteps by funding academic research<br /> ** Big Tobacco had a long history of commissioning and funding academic research to pull focus away from the proven harms of their products. Big Tech similarly started to fund institutions to ensure the “ethical development” of their technology, which led to questions about conflicts of interest and research independence. Researchers from Cornell noted that Big Tech and Big Tobacco’s funding of scientific research and development were similar in both industries: “Pump vast sums of money” into researching the problems they were creating.&lt;ref&gt;https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.13676&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Both Big Tech and Big Tobacco wanted to influence research to ensure their industries sustained support and were seen as socially responsible. Researchers from Cornell said Big Tobacco invested in Academia in order to influence the research questions of those studying tobacco, hoping to find friendly academics who could be leveraged and recast the companies as socially responsible. Big Tobacco’s funding agencies worked to maintain an impartial and scientific image, even as it mainly funded research that was not about tobacco’s health impacts.<br /> ** Much like Big Tobacco, the Academics that Big Tech invested in routinely failed to disclose their funding from Big Tech, which created a false impression of independence. The whole goal of funding the research was to exploit the confidence that is had in academia and research, because Think Tanks and organizations were treated as “neutral arbiters” by journalists and lawmakers.<br /> ** At Big Tech funded agencies, public relations officials and lawyers were involved in plotting the overall research direction and tone. Internal Google documents directed scientists to “strike a positive tone” in their research. Further internal memos from Google showed that the company intended to use friendly academics as a key aim in its strategy to lobby against the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Big Tobacco has given hundreds of millions to research over the years and their efforts spanned across the globe. Big tobacco started its own research group, The Tobacco Industry Research Committee, in 1964 and pumped more than $130 million into the effort by 1986.<br /> ** Big Tobacco continued this trend of investing in research across the globe, giving tens of thousands of Pounds to two think tanks in the UK that advised the government on Tobacco laws. The two think tanks criticized plans to force retailers to sell cigarettes in unbranded cartons, which was a measure supported by cancer charities and opposed by Big Tobacco. In 2019, it was reported that Tobacco companies had contributed to at least 106 think tanks in two dozen countries. The think tanks they contributed to were found to oppose plain cigarette packaging, had written to regulators in support of new tobacco products or promoted industry funded research. Big Tobacco also contributed to The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Americans For Tax Reform. As Big Tech faced pressure from proposed tech legislation, they significantly increased their spending on outside organizations, giving to nearly 771 third party organizations since 2015. A significant spike in funding of outside groups by Big Tech after federal and state officials increased scrutiny on their anti-competitive behaviors. Amazon went from contributing to 45 outside organizations in 2015 to 251 outside organizations in 2020. Google more than doubled the amount of outside groups it gave to in 2018 and 2019 compared to 2017 as it faced pressures from California’s consumer privacy law. All of this increased spending by Big Tech put a heavy pressure on academic staff to seek external sources of funding.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2019/jan/23/free-market-thinktanks-tobacco-industry&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Who Big Tech gives to and how much they contributed is murky, as think tanks and nonprofits aren’t required to disclose their funding. Despite Amazon, Facebook and Google voluntarily disclosing who they contributed to, the companies did not divulge the amounts of their contributions.<br /> ** However, it was found that in the past 5 years, six leading academic institutes in the EU had taken tens of millions of pounds of funding from Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft to research issues linked to the tech firm’s business models. The Institute For Ethics In Artificial Intelligence at the Technical University of Munich received a $7.5 million grant from Facebook in 2019. The Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin accepted almost 14 million Euros from Google since it was founded in 2012.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/big-tech/2021/07/how-google-quietly-funds-europe-s-leading-tech-policy-institutes&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** In the U.S., Big Tech individually contributed to various renowned and highly influential think tanks and nonprofits. Those think tanks and nonprofits included but are not limited to the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, International Center for Law &amp; Economics, the Information Technology &amp; Innovation foundation and the Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University.<br /> ** Big Tech was rewarded handsomely for their contributions to nonprofits and think tanks. Some lobbyists, scholars and think tank officials argued that Google’s donations to nonprofit groups helped explain why it had avoided damaging regulatory and enforcement decisions in the U.S. Further, the major nonprofits that Big Tech had contributed to helped facilitate introductions between the government and Big Tech.<br /> ** The Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University had trained more than 850 foreign judges and regulators on Antitrust at their seminars.<br /> ** While not all of the nonprofits and think tanks held events on behalf of Big Tech, many did advocate for Big Tech in other ways. The Cato Institute argued publicly that people should be “extremely skeptical about predictions of entrenched monopoly power” for big tech. The Progressive Policy Institute president and founder Will Marshall published an op-ed arguing against breaking up Big Tech monopolies while simultaneously calling them “innovative and successful.”<br /> * Big Tobacco was a lobbying “juggernaut” that invented the special interest lobbying model Big Tech used <br /> ** In 1998, the Big Tobacco spent nearly $73 million on federal lobbying and employed over 200 lobbyists. When adjusted for inflation, the #73 million in 1998 equated to $122 million in 2021. The Dean of Harvard’s graduate school of arts and sciences said Big Tobacco had “invested in the kind of special interest lobbying” that characterized the late 20th and early 21st century American politics. Big Tobacco was known for their “giant spending” and effective lobbying.<br /> ** Big Tobacco was said to have a “substantial” presence on Capitol Hill and had a lobbying effort so large it could only be described as a “juggernaut” by OpenSecrets. The Dean of Harvard’s graduate school of arts and sciences said Big Tobacco spent “boatloads” of money in Congress to prevent regulation as more information became public about the harm their products caused. Still to this day, Big Tobacco employed a massive amount of lobbyists, with Altria employing at least 409 lobbyists in 49 states and Reynolds employing 257 lobbyists in 39 states.<br /> ** Big Tobacco were also big spenders politically in the 90’s and early 2000’s. In 1996, the tobacco industry contributed more than $10 million to political campaigns. In 1998, they contributed more than $8.6 million. In 2000, Big Tobacco again spent more than $8.6 million on political campaigns. And in 2002, Big Tobacco spent $9.29 million on political campaigns. Reynolds American and Altria Group also donated $1.5 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration.<br /> * Big Tech invested in lobbying to the same degree that Big Tobacco did and have similarly become Washington lobbyists biggest cash cow<br /> ** A June 2021 NY Times headline read “Tech Giants, Fearful of Proposals to Curb Them, Blitz Washington With Lobbying.” And in 2020, Big Tech spent more on lobbying than any other industry at a combined $51.72 million. Facebook spent the most out of any company in 2020 and the same year spent the most it ever had on lobbying: $19.68 million. Following in second was Amazon, who spent $17.86 million on lobbying, which was also the most the company had ever spent in a year on lobbying. Google spent $7.53 million on lobbying and Apple spent $6.6 million on lobbying in 2020. When asked what they were looking to achieve with their lobbying, none of the tec companies would detail their targets.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/technology/amazon-apple-google-facebook-antitrust-bills.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tobacco created the model for Big Tech’s pre-empting legislation and regulation Big Tobacco offered to fund research and write legislation that would carve ou several loopholes and prevent stricter rules in the future<br /> ** Starting in the 1980s, Big Tobacco worked to pre-empt legislation with their own corporate-written legislation, a trend that continued into recent policy debates over the legal age to buy tobacco products. Big Tobacco had worked to pre-empt laws to raise the legal age to buy smoking products from 18 to 21 by pushing new legislation that would make enforcement difficult and nullify tougher local laws. A spokesman for the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids argued that Big Tobacco were “masters at proposing or supporting a bill that looked good on the surface but often included provisions that [were] harmful to public health.”<br /> ** By pre-empting legislation, Tobacco was able to halt any local efforts to limit how tobacco used. It was said that by pre-empting legislation with their own corporate-backed bills, Big Tobacco could effectively tie the hands of city governments who wanted to limit tobacco use further. Tobacco companies had been working to pre-empt legislation for decades, including pre-empting versions of the Clean Indoor Air Acts in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1994, a Philip Morris Employee even wrote that the company was “dead serious about achieving pre-emption in all 50 states.”<br /> * Big Tech followed suit and began supporting legislation they felt they could control to build goodwill after scandals ravaged the industry<br /> ** Following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook appeared to back some government regulation. The company launched a new campaign that offered concessions on the Big Tech regulatory debate to generate some goodwill while trying to reframe the larger debate on its own terms. Zuckerberg said in testimony that he welcomed privacy and misinformation regulation as long as it was the “right regulation.”<br /> ** Zuckerberg went so far as to call on congress to make “thoughtful reform” of Section 230, which safeguarded tech platforms from being held liable for content individual users posted. Zuckerberg said a company’s liability protection under Section 230 should be conditional on their ability to prove they can moderate harmful content – regardless if it successfully removed all harmful content. Zuckerberg's proposal for Section 230 immunity reforms “could theoretically shore up Facebook’s power” as it forced smaller social media companies and startups to develop costly content moderation systems. However, Facebook executives testified before Congress that they wanted Congress to pre-empt local laws that likely included stricter privacy protections than a federal bill.<br /> ** Ironically, just weeks before Zuckerberg’s 2018 testimony, Facebook poured hundreds of thousands into fighting a privacy ballot initiative in California. Facebook gave $200,000 to a PAC dedicated to defeating “a state ballot initiative that would expand Californian’s privacy controls. After his testimony, Facebook withdrew support for the group and then declined to say if they were involved in other efforts to oppose privacy legislation.<br /> * Big Tech also used more subtle means to influence policy, like leaning heavily and quietly on trade associations.<br /> ** A Big Tech lobbyist admitted that there was “strength in numbers” and said Big Tech could use trade associations to “do a little bit of heavy lifting.” Big Tech had increasingly been leaning on industry associations to influence public policy in Washington. Lobbyist Kate Mills, a partner at a Amazon-hired lobbying firm, admitted that Big Tech’s strategy involved leaning heavily and quietly on trade associations.<br /> ** Amazon, Facebook and Google funded a bevy of political groups that had helped push positive polling and engaged in other “fingerprint-free tactics” designed to deter regulators seeking to break up or penalize the industry. An advocacy group funded by Big Tech had secretly written an op-ed for a local small businessman in Arizona that opposed the state’s investigation into Google. The small business owner was unaware Google had backed the group that approached him to publish the op-ed.<br /> ** In a single year, Amazon reported spending $6.36 million on state focused “government relations efforts” in 44 states.<br /> <br /> * Big Tech supported a wide range of industry associations that advocated and lobbied for them in D.C.<br /> ** Big Tech has contributed to a wide range of industry associations, including but not limited to NetChoice, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Consumer Technology Association, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, TechNet, The Small Business &amp; Entrepreneurship Council, The Internet Association and ComPITA<br /> ** The various organizations pushed for Big Tech’s goals and defended them when they came under fire. NetChoice, “Tech’s most aggressive lobbying presence in D.C.” was a vocal opponent of antitrust action against Google. NetChoice attacked Texas’ lawsuit against Google’s anticompetitive advertising practices and attacked the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Google.<br /> ** The Consumer Technology Association spent $10 million on lobbying for Big Tech and opposed local tech regulations on their behalf. The Consumer Technology Association counted Facebook, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon as members. The group opposed proposed right to repair laws in Nevada and elsewhere.<br /> ** Other organizations provided extra support for Big Tech when they were railing against antitrust or privacy legislation. The Progressive Policy Institute joined Google, Facebook and Amazon (all of which were donors) when the companies were fighting back against Senator Warren’s call to break up Big Tech. Facebook’s Lobbyist co-chaired a technology council at the Illinois Chamber of Commerce as the Chamber was backing the gutting of an online privacy law.<br /> ** Facebook turned to a lower-profile trade groups such as The Internet Association and CompTIA to help block privacy legislation. 21 days after a judge ruled against Facebook in a biometric privacy act lawsuit, a Facebook backed law weakening Illinois’ biometric privacy act was introduced in the Illinois state legislature. Facebook and CompTIA were directly described as “having a hand in blocking or weakening biometric privacy bills in Montana, Washington, And Illinois.”<br /> ** CompTIA pushed for changes to the biometric information privacy act on Facebook’s behalf, along with donating to the Republican Party of Texas, where the Republican Attorney General was the sole enforcer of the State’s Biometric Privacy Regulations<br /> ** In 2020, Facebook launched an astroturf organization to convince federal regulators that Facebook was crucial to free speech. Facebook created American Edge to combat potential federal regulations through advertising and other means. After American Edge was formed as a nonprofit organization, it set up an accompanying social welfare group, which was a common tactic used to obscure donors. American Edge said it was important to create policies that don’t weaken companies that “share American values” as they competed globally.<br /> * Much like Big Tobacco was in the 90s, Big Tech became mammoth political donors, collectively spending more than $100 million between 2016-2020<br /> ** Most of Big Tech’s campaign contributions went towards Democrats, which increased year by year as Democrats grew louder about tech reform. Between 2016-2020, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, contributed more than $44 million in political donations. Between 2018-2020, Amazon contributed more than $26 million to political campaigns. Apple contributed more than $12 million to political campaigns between 2016-2020 and Facebook contributed more than $18 million to political campaigns between 2016-2020. Facebook also donated to all four co-sponsors of an Illinois bill to weaken the 2008 biometric information privacy act.<br /> * Adding to their influence campaigns, Big Tech followed Big Tobacco’s playbook of employing revolving door techniques both Big Tobacco and Big Tech have had former employees in high level government positions and have hired former high level government officials<br /> ** Big Tobacco found a way to deeply ingratiate themselves with the Trump and Bush administrations. Several top Bush administration staffers had backgrounds in Tobacco, including Senior Adviser Karl Rove. Vice President Pence had extensive ties to the Tobacco industry, receiving $39k in donations from RJ Reynolds and more than $60k from the industry group National Association of Convenience Stores. Senator Blumenthal noted that many of Trump’s appointees had “deep commitments to the Tobacco industry.” Former head of the FDA Scott Gottlieb worked for the e-cigarette company Kure and condemned the influence of Anti-tobacco “activists” in the FDA. The former Solicitor General Noel Francisco represented RJ Reynolds on behalf of the corporate law firm Jones Day prior to joining the federal government.<br /> ** Big Tobacco also hired former Trump Officials as lobbyists. RJ Reynolds hired former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price’s deputy Chief of Staff as their lobbyists.<br /> * People who worked for Big Tech landed powerful government jobs while government officials have taken over cushy tech offices<br /> ** Apple had numerous former employees in high level adviser roles in the Biden administration. Cynthia Hogan, a “top adviser” to Joe Bide, was a former Apple lobbyist. Karen Dunn, a Biden Adviser, served as counsel to Apple, Oracle, Facebook, Uber and Jeff Bezos. Lisa Monaco, Biden’s deputy Attorney General, Advised companies such as Google in private practice. Dennis McDonough, Biden’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs, disclosed in his PFD that he had provided “strategic advice” for Apple. Cass Sunstein, currently Senior Counselor at The Department of Homeland Security, advised on behalf of Apple and Facebook.<br /> ** Amazon recruited multiple former Obama officials after they left the administration. Jay Carney, former White House Press Secretary under Obama, was Amazon’s “top person in Washington, as Vice President of Global Affairs. Mike Punke, former Ambassador to the World Trade Organization under Obama, was Vice President of Public Policy for Amazon Web Services. Renata Hesse, A former Department of Justice official, helped “shepherd through the Amazon/Whole Foods merger.”<br /> ** Facebook tried to play the revolving door game, but had trouble doing so despite offering $2.5 million to oversee their lobbying efforts. In Oct. 2021, it was reported that Facebook had been trying “to hire a big name Democrat” since January of that year to oversee their lobbying operation. Facebook’s difficulty to hire former staffers led them to hiring Jon Branscome, a Democratic tech-policy aide from the Senate Commerce Committee. Facebook also hired Daniel Kidera, a former Obama Administration official and Scheduler for Chuck Schumer. Facebook’s Senior Vice President of Public Policy was Joel Kaplan, who was previously a staffer for George W. Bush.<br /> ** Google had an ally in the DOJ’s antitrust division during the Trump Administration and a former FTC commissioner joined a law firm Google had hired. Makan Delrahim, who led the DOJ antitrust division under Donald Trump, formerly worked on behalf of Google. After leaving office, former FTC commissioner Joshua Wright joined a law firm that represented Google before the FTC.<br /> * Big Tobacco and Big Tech had a habit of running from their names after losing public trust in 2003, Philip Morris changed its name to ‘Altria Group’ after public started to feel their name “meant death”<br /> ** Philip Morris said the name change brought “clarity” to its corporation and operating companies. In 2003, Philip Morris changed its name to ‘Altria Group’. The company said the name change brought “clarity” to its corporate structure and the relationship between the parent company to its operating companies. Philip Morris’ Senior Vice President at the time said “When people say ‘Philip Morris’, people don’t know which company you’re talking about [...] We’re more than a tobacco company.”<br /> ** Philip Morris also owned Kraft Foods along with their tobacco company<br /> ** In reality, the name change was a financial decision brought as a way to distance the company from the “death” people associated with them. A former FDA commissioner said Philip Morris was “running away from tobacco” with their name change. The company’s connection with Tobacco had long depressed its stock price, despite being the largest packaged goods company. To consumers, Philip Morris meant tobacco, and tobacco meant death.<br /> * Facebook planned to change its company name to ‘Meta’ after facing fire for spreading misinformation<br /> ** Facebook planned to change the name of its company to ‘Meta’ as a signal of its ambition to be known for more than social media. Facebook was reportedly investing in what it called the ‘Metaverse’ which was a digital world where people used various devices to engage with each other in a 3d environment.<br /> ** The name change came after internal memos leaked showing the company knew about the damage it caused society. At the time of the name change, Facebook was facing some of the most intense scrutiny in its history after an internal whistleblower had leaked internal documents showing Facebook knew about the harmful effects it was having.<br /> ** Much like Philip Morris, Facebook’s renaming was seen as a way to distance itself from the social networking controversies it was facing. TV personality Jim Cramer kind of let the cat out of the bag when he said the secret of Facebook’s valuation was because of its “habit of reinvention” Facebook’s name change was seen as directly resembling Philip Morris’ decision to change their name after controversies plagued the company. Fast Company said “for a company that brisle[d] at references to its services being akin to cigarettes, taking a page from the Big Tobacco playbook [was] a stunner.” But at the end of the day, the name change would have no impact on Facebook’s operations or executive structure. The change was largely cosmetic.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.fastcompany.com/90424503/facebook-google-amazon-are-ramping-up-their-secretive-influence-campaigns-in-dc&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tech spent more on federal lobbying from 2010-202 than the nation’s largest banks from 2000-2010 or Big Tobacco from 1996-1999<br /> ** Since 2000, the four largest Big Tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Alphabet/Google, and Facebook – have spent $465,026,307 on federal lobbying. $434,474,221 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> ** Additionally, nine groups that the four Big Tech companies fund have spent $98,061,827 on federal lobbying since 2000. $80,400,019 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> ** Big Tech’s federal lobbying total eclipses that of other major toxic industries: Since 2010, the nation’s largest opioid manufacturers have spent $282,292,834 on federal lobbying. America’s seven largest banks in the leadup to the financial crisis spent $194,193,858 on federal lobbying from 2000 to 2010. From 1996 to 1999, the nation’s largest tobacco companies spent $155,750,398 on federal lobbying, or $261,306,596 in 2021 dollars.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Facebook%27s_False_Claim_To_Supporting_Regulation&diff=410 2022-03-26T22:49:40Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* For years, Facebook’s approach to looming regulatory policy in the U.S. and abroad involved denying any need for regulation at all.<br /> ** In 2017, Facebook lobbyists and its allied Internet Association warned that proposed BROWSER Act legislation requiring websites and ISPs to obtain consent from users before sharing their browser data with other entities threatened innovation.&lt;ref&gt;https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/google-and-facebook-lobbyists-try-to-stop-new-online-privacy-protections/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2016, less than a month after a judge ruled against Facebook in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA) Lawsuit, the company backed a proposal in the state legislature to significantly weaken the 8-year-old law. Facebook donated to all four co-sponsors of the rollback proposal and leaned on its allied trade associations like the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and CompTIA to push for changes to BIPA.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&amp;q=https://publicintegrity.org/2017/07/31/21027/saving-face-facebook-wants-access-without-limits&amp;ust=1645722060000000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0bp-FcyY8BhY5EneYlE9Hs&amp;hl=en&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * According to the Center for Public Integrity reporting, CompTIA and Facebook played a role in weakening similar biometric privacy proposals in Montana and Washington as well. In Texas, CompTIA donated $5,00 to the state Republican Party, where the Attorney General – a Republican – was responsible for the sole enforcement of a state biometric privacy law.<br /> * Facebook’s “no regulations” whatsoever approach changed in the aftermath of the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which a The Guardian investigation revealed a political consulting firm harvested the data of millions of Facebook users without their consent. The incident forced Facebook to go on a public apology tour and landed CEO Mark Zuckerberg before The Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committee. In that March 2018 hearing, Senators criticized Facebook’s failure to protect users’ data and its role in enabling Russian interference in the 2016 election. Zuckerberg acknowledged the company’s shortcomings and said he welcomed additional regulations to address them.<br /> * Facebook paired Zuckerberg’s testimony with a public campaign to generate goodwill among skeptics in the government and media and shape forthcoming regulatory policy through funding think tanks. The company funded well-known policy centers like the Cato Institute, and The Future of Privacy Forum. These organizations hosted events that offered company allies opportunities to interact with policymakers directly and produced public commentary on the privacy debate aligned with the company’s goals.<br /> * Facebook’s push for federal privacy regulations was intended to pre-empt states from passing their stricter laws; company executives stated as much in Congressional testimony. Just weeks before Zuckerberg’s March 2018 testimony, the company had poured $200,000 into The Committee to Protect California Jobs, a political action group organized to defeat a ballot initiative that would give Californians greater control over their privacy. Facebook pulled their support for the group following Zuckerberg’s testimony but declined to say whether they were involved in similar efforts elsewhere.<br /> * In 2020, the Washington Post reported that Facebook launched an AstroTurf group American Edge which aimed to “convince policymakers that Silicon Valley is essential to the U.S. economy and the future of free speech.” American Edge ran ads likening proposals to regulate Silicon Valley to legislative overreach in the manufacturing industry. The group painted the tech industry as integral to free speech and American influence abroad. It warned that potential regulations threatened to harm “companies that share American values as they compete in the global marketplace.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/12/facebook-lobbying-american-edge/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Meanwhile, in March 2021, Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a House Subcommittee and declared Congress should make “thoughtful reform” to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The existing Section 230 safeguarded technology platforms from being held liable for content posted by individual users. Zuckerberg proposed revising section 230 to make companies liability protection conditional on demonstrating they have “systems in place” for identifying unlawful content and removing it. Under his proposal, platforms would not be held liable if “if a particular piece of content evades detection.” NBC News reported the policy would “theoretically shore up Facebook's power, as well as that of other internet giants like Google, by requiring smaller social media companies and startups to develop robust content moderation systems that can be costly.”</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=409 2022-03-24T23:04:20Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>/* CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */<br /> #ca-talk { display: none !important; }<br /> #ca-history { display: none !important;}<br /> #ca-viewsource { display: none !important; }<br /> #p-logo { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #mw-page-base { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #mw-head-base { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #column-content { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #column-one { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #footer-places-privacy { display: none; }<br /> #footer-places-disclaimer { display: none; }<br /> #f-list #privacy { display: none; }<br /> #f-list #disclaimer { display: none; }<br /> #p-tb { display: none; } - removes the whole Tools menu.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=408 2022-03-24T23:02:43Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>/* CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */<br /> #ca-talk { display: none !important; }<br /> #ca-history { display: none !important;}<br /> #ca-viewsource { display: none !important; }<br /> #p-logo { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #mw-page-base { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #mw-head-base { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #column-content { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #column-one { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #footer-places-privacy { display: none; }<br /> #footer-places-disclaimer { display: none; }<br /> #p-tb { display: none; } - removes the whole Tools menu.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=407 2022-03-24T22:58:38Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>/* CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */<br /> #ca-talk { display: none !important; }<br /> #ca-history { display: none !important;}<br /> #ca-viewsource { display: none !important; }<br /> #p-logo { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #mw-page-base { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #mw-head-base { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #column-content { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #column-one { background-color: #FFFFFF; }<br /> #footer-places-privacy { display: none; }<br /> #footer-places-disclaimer { display: none; }</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=406 2022-03-24T17:30:50Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>== Big Tech Wiki Page ==<br /> * Big Tech<br /> **Big Tech, Lobbying, and Proxy Organizations Funded By Big Tech<br /> ***Trade/Proxy Organizations funded by Big Tech<br /> ****[[TechNet]]<br /> ****[[ACT - The App Association]]<br /> ****[[Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)]]<br /> ****[[NetChoice]]<br /> ****[[Consumer Technology Association (CTA)]]<br /> ****[[Developers Alliance]]<br /> ****[[Internet Association]]<br /> ****[[Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)]]<br /> ****[[New York Coalition for Independent Work]]<br /> ****[[American Edge]]<br /> ****[[Download Fairness Coalition]]<br /> ****[[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]]<br /> ****[[Chamber of Progress]]<br /> ****[[Connected Commerce Council]]<br /> ****[[Financial Innovation Now (FIN)]]<br /> ***Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research<br /> ****[[Global Antitrust Institute]]<br /> ****[[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]<br /> ****[[Links to Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC]]<br /> ****[[Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech's lobbying vs other Toxic Industries]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech Influence Maps]]<br /> <br /> *[[Big Tech and National Security]]<br /> **[[Disinformation and Big Tech as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Hacks and Vulnerabilities as a Security Threat]]<br /> *Big Tech and Financial Services<br /> **[[Big Tech entering Financial Services]]<br /> ***[[Google Pay]]<br /> ***[[Amazon]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Libra/Crypto]]<br /> ***[[Apple Card and Apple Pay]]<br /> ***[[Consumer Financial Bureau Regulation|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation]]<br /> ***[[Further Concerns]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Regulation]]<br /> **[[Small Business Support of Regulation]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Climate]]<br /> *Big Tech and Social Justice<br /> **[[Lack of Latinos in Big Tech]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Spanish Language Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Anti-Vax Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech Lying to Congress]]<br /> **[[Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Algorithmic Bias]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *Amazon<br /> **[[Amazon and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Amazon and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Workers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Taxes]]<br /> **[[Amazon and National Security]]<br /> *Apple<br /> **[[Apple and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Apple and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Apple and Privacy]]<br /> **[[Apple and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Apple and Workers]]<br /> **[[Apple and China]]<br /> **[[Apple and Taxes]]<br /> *Facebook<br /> **Facebook and Consumers<br /> ***[[Facebook Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Is Building Another Monopoly In &quot;The Metaverse&quot;]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Facing Pressure from Consumers, Regulators]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Cryptocurrency Not Trusted by Lawmakers]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Facebook's Oversight Board]]<br /> **Facebook and Dissent<br /> ***[[Facebook and Whistleblowers]]<br /> ***[[NYU Study on Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook's False Claim To Supporting Regulation]]<br /> **Facebook and User Harm<br /> ***[[Allowing Illegal Actions for Ads]]<br /> ***[[Failures to Keep Children Safe]]<br /> ***[[Facebook and Mental Health]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Taxes]]<br /> *Google<br /> **[[Google and Consumers]]<br /> ***[[Google Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> **[[Google and Small Businesses]]<br /> **[[Google and Koch Connections]]<br /> **[[Google Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Google and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Google and National Security]]<br /> **[[Google and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=BigTechWiki:About&diff=405 2022-03-24T17:08:01Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>BigTechWiki is a project of the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to holding Big Tech accountable by urging lawmakers to support comprehensive antitrust legislation. <br /> <br /> Content will be added over time, so please check back frequently.<br /> <br /> You can contact us at info@techoversight.org.<br /> <br /> For more information or to support our work, visit https://techoversight.org/.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=BigTechWiki:About&diff=404 2022-03-24T17:07:18Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>BigTechWiki is a project of the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to holding Big Tech accountable by urging lawmakers to support comprehensive antitrust legislation. <br /> <br /> Content will be added over time, so please check back frequently.<br /> <br /> You can contact us at info@techoversight.com.<br /> <br /> For more information or to support our work, visit https://techoversight.org/.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Google_and_Taxes&diff=403 2022-03-23T19:14:50Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* In 2017, Google moved $22.7 billion through a Dutch shell company in Bermuda, where companies pay no income tax, to reduce its foreign tax bill.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-taxes-netherlands/google-shifted-23-billion-to-tax-haven-bermuda-in-2017-filing-idUSKCN1OX1G9&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The tax strategy was phased out beginning in 2014 in response to pressure from the EU and the United States, two regions that were cheated by this tax advantage, ending Google’s tax advantages in 2020.<br /> <br /> * 2010 to 2019: Google paid $27.9 billion in income taxes on $176.6 billion in profits after taking in $647.7 billion in revenue.<br /> * Google’s cash tax paid amounted to 15.8 percent of its profits, despite a federal headline tax rate of 35 percent in the United States.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Google_and_National_Security&diff=402 2022-03-23T19:12:23Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Google and China'''<br /> <br /> * Google executives wanted a relationship and further cooperation with China, saying it was a “wonderful, innovative market.” Google Sundar Pichai said Google needed to “think hard” about whether it would continue to work in China and look at the “long term.” Jeff Dean, head of Google AI, hoped to promote further exchange and cooperation with China. Despite saying Google needed to “think hard” about their presence in China, Pichai praised the “wonderful, innovative market” in China. Pichai used the “wonderful, innovative market” excuse to defend their work on a censored search engine for the Chinese government. Pichai said Google wanted to “learn what it would look like if Google was in China.”&lt;ref&gt;The China Post, 10/20/18&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Google partnered with China’s leading AI research institution, even though it also conducted AI research for China’s military. The university Google partnered with, Tsinghua University, had received $14.53 million from China’s Science and Technology Committee of China’s Central Military Commission. The funding was intended to be spent on research on a project aimed at advancing the country’s military AI capabilities and developing AI for human/machine combat training. Google had also partnered with another Chinese university in Shanghai to research AI. In 2015, Google hosted nearly 100 Huawei engineers in Mountain View and gave them their own dedicated lab to help them produce better phones.&lt;ref&gt;The Epoch Times, 8/1/19&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Google_and_the_Auto_Industry&diff=401 2022-03-23T19:11:45Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Google had the most investment in autonomous vehicles of any Big Tech company. <br /> * VSI Labs said “no company has more in the game  than Google (Waymo) with massive fleets, deployments, investments and software expertise.” <br /> * Google’s Android operating system was widespread in cars, with a Berylls analysis showing that within a few years of 2020, Google’s  smartphone mirroring extended to some 80% of global car sales. <br /> * Waymo, formerly Google’s self-driving project, which became independent under Alphabet in 2017, was in talks in June 2021 to raise as much as $4 billion to accelerate AV efforts. In 2020, Waymo tested self-driving trucks in New Mexico and Texas.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/big-tech-s-car-obsession-is-all-about-taking-eyes-off-the-road&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Google_Disinformation&diff=400 2022-03-23T19:11:02Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> '''YouTube spreads disinformation'''<br /> <br /> * YouTube’s algorithm put equal weight on climate science videos and climate denial videos and continued to serve up new climate misinformation to those who viewed similar content. Though Google took steps in October 2021 to demonetize climate denial YouTube videos, it still allowed climate denial content if it was presented as “public discourse.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/why-climate-science-doesn-t-go-viral-on-youtube&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * YouTube hosted thousands of videos that pushed vaccine misinformation, one of which was viewed 2 million times and only taken down after a reporter inquired about it.<br /> * The January 6th Committee noted that YouTube allowed insurrectionists to livestream the attack on the Capitol and hosted election misinformation in the leadup to the attack.<br /> * A day before the 2020 election, YouTube said it had not implemented any specific policies around misinformation stemming from the election, instead relying on the content policies it had developed in the last three years. In the ten days after the election, videos claiming Trump had won and that voter fraud was rampant proliferated, but YouTube refused to remove then, arguing that it wanted to allow “discussion” of the results. By the time YouTube changed its policies in early December 2020 to curtail election misinformation, videos promoting the Big Lie had been viewed 2.4 billion times, including 180 million views promoting “voter fraud” that had been viewed after YouTube supposedly banned such content.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/23/technology-202-where-is-youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In early 2022, videos spreading misinformation about the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection were still being posted to the platform, accruing hundreds of thousands of views.<br /> * In 2019, a year after it was announced that information from Wikipedia would be displayed on popular conspiracy theory videos, the added context was missing on some conspiracy videos.<br /> *After Google and other tech companies announced they were taking seemingly decisive steps to cut the Kremlin’s disinformation machine from their platforms during Russia's invasion of Ukraine, an analysis by NewsGuard found that, &quot;despite those statements, dozens of websites promoting Russian disinformation about the Ukraine war continue to receive advertising revenue from Google and other advertising companies. These include websites that hide their sources of funding and control, that are registered in countries such as Cyprus, or that are owned by business associates of Putin. These are part of the broader ecosystem of Russian disinformation where myths often originate on Kremlin-owned sites and are then spread by a network of sites repeating the myths.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/ads-russian-propaganda/&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Facebook_and_Taxes&diff=399 2022-03-23T19:04:33Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Facebook avoided paying taxes by shifting the rights to its online platform and marketing intangibles to Ireland, a tax haven used by other Big Tech Companies.&lt;ref&gt;https://itep.org/facebook-facing-shareholder-scrutiny-for-its-offshore-tax-avoidance/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Facebook faced scrutiny for underpaying taxes by $3 To $5 billion by undervaluing the worth of its intellectual property when transferring it to Ireland. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Police reported that Facebook “led the pack in exploiting the stock option loophole,” which allowed companies to deduct income based on the size of stock options they issued.<br /> * From 2010 to 2019, Facebook paid $7.7 billion in income taxes on $75.5 billion in profits, which amounted to 10.2 percent of its profits.<br /> * Facebook’s cash tax paid amounted to 10.2 percent of its profits, despite a federal headline tax rate of 35 percent in the United States.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Facebook_and_Disinformation&diff=398 2022-03-23T18:55:35Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* New York University researcher Laura Edelson said she and her team used their research to study Facebook’s “apparent amplification of partisan misinformation”&lt;ref&gt;https://twitter.com/lauraedelson2/status/1422736707485634563&lt;/ref&gt; before Facebook abruptly shut down her account and the accounts of two of her colleagues at the NYU Ad Observatory.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.vox.com/recode/22612151/laura-edelson-facebook-nyu-ad-observatory-social-media-researcher&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Edelson and her team found that Facebook users engaged with misinformation more than other kinds of information on the platform. The team’s findings led Edelson to believe we were “racing against the clock” to understand how disinformation spread on social media. Edelson called understanding how misinformation spread on social media a “right now” problem.<br /> * Facebook’s XCheck allowed whitelisted users to post inflammatory claims even when they had been deemed false by Facebook’s fact checkers. Misleading posts by whitelisted users said that vaccines were deadly, that Hillary Clinton had covered up pedophile rings and that Trump called asylum seekers “animals.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2020, posts by whitelisted users that contained misinformation had been viewed at least 16.4 billion times.<br /> * Facebook itself was a proliferator of misinformation. An internal review of Facebook’s whitelisting practice said “we are not actually doing what we say we do publicly.” Facebook even lied to its own oversight board about XCheck and the whitelisting of users, saying the system was used in “a small number of decisions.”<br /> * Zuckerberg opposed reforming Facebook’s algorithm to stop it from rewarding misinformation over business concerns and fears it would hurt efforts to increase engagement by users.<br /> *Chinese state-owned outlets used Facebook to spread disinformation and propaganda supporting Russian claims over the invasion of Ukraine, even after Facebook allegedly took efforts to tamp down.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252514981/Chinese-state-media-use-Facebook-to-push-pro-Russia-disinformation-on-Ukraine-war&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Facebook_and_Disinformation&diff=397 2022-03-23T18:48:32Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* New York University researcher Laura Edelson said she and her team used their research to study Facebook’s “apparent amplification of partisan misinformation”&lt;ref&gt;https://twitter.com/lauraedelson2/status/1422736707485634563&lt;/ref&gt; before Facebook abruptly shut down her account and the accounts of two of her colleagues at the NYU Ad Observatory.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.vox.com/recode/22612151/laura-edelson-facebook-nyu-ad-observatory-social-media-researcher&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Edelson and her team found that Facebook users engaged with misinformation more than other kinds of information on the platform. The team’s findings led Edelson to believe we were “racing against the clock” to understand how disinformation spread on social media. Edelson called understanding how misinformation spread on social media a “right now” problem.<br /> * Facebook’s XCheck allowed whitelisted users to post inflammatory claims even when they had been deemed false by Facebook’s fact checkers. Misleading posts by whitelisted users said that vaccines were deadly, that Hillary Clinton had covered up pedophile rings and that Trump called asylum seekers “animals.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2020, posts by whitelisted users that contained misinformation had been viewed at least 16.4 billion times.<br /> * Facebook itself was a proliferator of misinformation. An internal review of Facebook’s whitelisting practice said “we are not actually doing what we say we do publicly.” Facebook even lied to its own oversight board about XCheck and the whitelisting of users, saying the system was used in “a small number of decisions.”<br /> * Zuckerberg opposed reforming Facebook’s algorithm to stop it from rewarding misinformation over business concerns and fears it would hurt efforts to increase engagement by users.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Facebook_and_Disinformation&diff=396 2022-03-23T18:44:26Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Laura Edelson said she and her team used their research to study Facebook’s “apparent amplification of partisan misinformation.” Edelson and her team found that Facebook users engaged with misinformation more than other kinds of information on the platform. The team’s findings led Edelson to believe we were “racing against the clock” to understand how disinformation spread on social media. Edelson called understanding how misinformation spread on social media a “right now” problem.<br /> ** Facebook’s XCheck allowed whitelisted users to post inflammatory claims even when they had been deemed false by Facebook’s fact checkers. Misleading posts by whitelisted users said that vaccines were deadly, that Hillary Clinton had covered up pedophile rings and that Trump called asylum seekers “animals.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** In 2020, posts by whitelisted users that contained misinformation had been viewed at least 16.4 billion times.<br /> ** Facebook itself was a proliferator of misinformation. An internal review of Facebook’s whitelisting practice said “we are not actually doing what we say we do publicly.” Facebook even lied to its own oversight board about XCheck and the whitelisting of users, saying the system was used in “a small number of decisions.”<br /> ** Zuckerberg opposed reforming Facebook’s algorithm to stop it from rewarding misinformation over business concerns and fears it would hurt efforts to increase engagement by users.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Apple_and_Taxes&diff=395 2022-03-23T18:39:37Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Apple avoided taxes by creating three offshore corporations in Ireland, a known tax haven.&lt;ref&gt;https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/highlights-of-apples-tax-dodging/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Apple used a “cost-sharing agreement” with its Irish subsidiaries, which transferred part ownership of intellectual property created in the U.S. to Ireland to avoid paying taxes in the U.S.<br /> * Apple also used a tax loophole which allowed them to declare to the IRS that its three offshore subsidiaries were one company.<br /> * Forbes: Apple “has become famous over the years for deploying legions of accountants to devise offshore tax avoidance mechanisms with names like ‘double Irish with a Dutch sandwich.’”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/04/18/what-americas-biggest-companies-pay-in-taxes/?sh=7115625f2f51&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * July 2020: An EU court ruled that Apple would not have to pay Ireland $14.8 billion in back taxes, which overturned a 2016 ruling that Apple had been giving illegal tax breaks by Dublin.<br /> * Fair Tax Mark reported that Apple had the fifth biggest tax gap of the six companies examined in its study.<br /> * 2010 To 2019: Apple paid $93.8 billion in income taxes on $548.7 billion in profits after taking in $1,888 billion in revenue.<br /> * Apple’s cash tax paid amounted to 17.1 percent of its profits, despite a federal headline tax rate of 35 percent in the United States.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Apple_and_Workers&diff=394 2022-03-23T18:38:36Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* In 2019, Apple admitted to breaking Chinese labor law by employing too many temporary workers at the world’s largest iPhone factory.&lt;ref&gt;[https://fortune.com/2019/09/09/apple-admits-breaking-china-labor-laws-foxconn-iphone-factory/#:~:text=Apple%20Admits%20Breaking%20Chinese%20Labor%20Laws%20in%20the%20World's%20Largest%20iPhone%20Factory,-By&amp;text=Apple%20Inc.,also%20alleged%20harsh%20working%20conditions https://fortune.com/2019/09/09/apple-admits-breaking-china-labor-laws-foxconn-iphone-factory/]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Nonprofit advocacy group China Labor Watch accused Apple and Foxconn of labor violations, including withholding bonus payments, rolling back safety training, and employing more  temporary workers than China’s laws allowed, The Washington Post reported.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/09/apple-accused-worker-violations-chinese-factories-by-labor-rights-group/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Google laid off dozens of employees and outsourced their jobs to India, making the workers train their own replacements before the layoffs.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.morningbrew.com/emerging-tech/stories/2022/03/21/before-layoffs-hit-google-owned-looker-workers-unknowingly-trained-their-replacements&lt;/ref&gt;  <br /> *Google settled with six engineers who claimed retaliation for workplace organizing in a high profile National Labor Relations Board case.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.vice.com/en/article/88gbjz/google-settles-with-four-engineers-over-complaint-it-fired-them-for-organizing&lt;/ref&gt; The case revealed that Google had run a secret campaign called “Project Vivian” to crush union organizing. Google chose to settle rather than hand over documents related to the operation.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/google-settlement-anti-union-planning&lt;/ref&gt; </div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Apple_and_the_Auto_Industry&diff=393 2022-03-23T18:34:42Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Apple was already making serious auto industry in-roads but has never publicly admitted that it is working on a car.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-shuts-some-elements-of-electric-self-driving-car-project-lays-off-workers-1473475712?mod=article_inline&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The Wall Street Journal said Apple sought to “control every aspect of the user experience” and changed entire markets when it rolled out the iPhone and iTunes.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-and-the-end-of-the-car-as-we-know-it-11621656010?mod=article_inline&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Apple’s mysterious plans could mean it was working on a car, tech platform, or mobility service, but as of Spring 2021, Bloomberg reported Apple prioritized plans for the “Apple Car.”<br /> * In 2014, Apple began working on “Project Titan,” with 1,000+ employees developing an electric vehicle at a secret location near its headquarters. In early 2021, Apple was in talks with Hyundai and Nissan over a vehicle, but both talks broke down, with the Nissan talks falling through after Apple wanted Apple-branded vehicles, effectively downgrading Nissan to a supplier. Apple has laid the groundwork to move into the auto industry,  including 2014 CarPlay rollout, 2019 autonomous vehicle company Drive.ai acquisition, and a 2020 patent for vehicle alerts. Apple  supplier Foxconn was even building out its own auto-making capabilities and in March 2021, it raised the  possibility of manufacturing an EV and hinted at additional partnerships with U.S. companies into the auto industry.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18758820/drive-ai-self-driving-startup-shutting-down-apple&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Apple_and_Consumers&diff=392 2022-03-23T18:22:58Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* To use its App Store, Apple only allows payment through its own payment method and doesn’t allow developers to contact consumers, to tell them about lower prices, or offer competitive pricing. This has led people to call them a monopoly in a classic sense.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/30/epic-apple-trial-antitrust-fortnite-app-store/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The iPhone is vulnerable to hacks and the public has been misled about its security.<br /> * The App Store is also vulnerable to scam and ripoff apps. The review process has been called “feeble” and since 2012 Apple has known that the App Store was a “playground for illicit transactions.”</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Amazon_and_National_Security&diff=391 2022-03-23T18:21:42Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* The cloud services space was dominated by Amazon, who had billions of dollars worth of contracts with federal defense agencies like the Department of Defense. <br /> *Amazon held nearly 34% of the worldwide cloud computer market. <br /> *Amazon was the dominant cloud provider for federal agencies, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community. <br /> *The NSA awarded Amazon a secret cloud computing contract worth up to $10 billion. Even the CIA used Amazon’s cloud services. <br /> *The contracts Amazon had secured with the government were a factor in why the company had increased investment in cloud services.&lt;ref&gt;https://blogs.vmware.com/cloudhealth/azure-vs-aws-comparison-azure-really-catching&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Amazon_and_Workers&diff=390 2022-03-23T18:20:21Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Throughout Amazon’s 27-year existence it used “Hard-Nosed Tactics From A Well Worn Playbook” to stop union drives. <br /> *The Washington Post: “Among other problems, unions could dent the company’s flexibility, limiting its ability to rapidly hire and cut workers to meet shopping demands that spike and recede throughout the year,” said former company executives who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about internal policy.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/09/amazon-union-bessemer-history/&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Amazon_and_the_Auto_Industry&diff=389 2022-03-23T18:19:13Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Amazon was already making in-roads in the auto industry and had the most to gain from automated vehicle deliveries. In June 2020, Amazon acquired Zoox for $1.2 billion to design autonomous ride-hailing vehicles. In December 2018, Zoox Inc. received the first California permit to transport vehicles in self-driving cars.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33001491/amazon-buys-zoox-autonomous-company/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In October 2020, Amazon unveiled its first all-electric van built by electric vehicle (EV) startup Rivian, with an expected 10,000 vans on roads as soon as 2022, and 100,000 by 2030.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21507495/amazon-electric-delivery-van-rivian-date-specs&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * VSI Labs said Amazon had the “most to gain” from AV for deliveries and Bloomberg said it had the ability to “change up its own stomping ground.”</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_and_Regulation&diff=388 2022-03-21T17:53:37Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Senators Klobuchar and Grassley introduced a bill to keep Big Tech from using their dominance to squelch competition and disadvantage rivals <br /> *Klobuchar and Grassley's bill was widely supported on both sides of the aisle, with 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats co-sponsoring it<br /> ** Klobuchar and Grassley introduced the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’ (AICOA) which would create rules for dominant tech platforms to prevent anti-competitive behavior. A CNBC headline read “Klobuchar, Grassley to lead antitrust bill barring big tech from disadvantaging rivals.” The two said their bill would create rules “for dominant digital platforms to prevent them from abusing their market power to harm competition, online businesses and consumers.” Klobuchar said she was “proud to introduce this much-needed legislation alongside Senator Grassley and a bipartisan group of our colleagues.” Grassley said the bill would “help create a more even playing field and ensure that small businesses were able to compete with [dominant tech] platforms.” The bill was cosponsored by Democratic Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Durbin, Hirono and Warner. The bill’s Republican cosponsors were Senators Daines, Graham, Hawley, Lummis and Kennedy.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/10/support-builds-for-bipartisan-legislation-from-klobuchar-grassley-and-colleagues-to-rein-in-big-tech&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Klobuchar and Grassley's bill was lauded by a bipartisan group of 32 Attorneys General, various consumer groups, and tech companies like Yelp, Spotify, and Roku.<br /> ** A bipartisan coalition of 32 State Attorneys General called for the passage of AICOA, believing the bill would improve antitrust laws. The Attorneys General wrote a letter to Congress urging them to improve the country’s antitrust laws.&lt;ref&gt;https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-leads-bipartisan-coalition-calling-congress-modernize&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** 60 consumer advocacy groups, labor groups and public interest groups supported the passage of AICOA. The groups said passing AICOA would “enhance consumer choice and allow for greater competition.” The co-founder of the group Accountable Tech said AICOA took “direct aim at some of the most exploitative tactics Silicon Valley ha[d] long employed to unfairly entrench their dominance.”&lt;ref&gt;https://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-joins-57-public-interest-groups-urging-swift-passage-of-house-antitrust-bills-to-rein-in-big-tech/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Well-known tech companies similarly saw AICOA as a positive step towards regulating Big Tech’s dominance and anti-competitive behavior. Yelp and Trip Advisor complained that Google had unfairly lowered their sites in search results in favor of their own Google Maps tool. Yelp’s Senior VP of Public Policy said AICOA would “restore competitiveness in the online marketplace.” Spotify’s Head of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer said AICOA would deter “gatekeeper platforms” from distorting the market to help themselves. DuckDuckGo’s CEO said the bill would stop Big Tech from using “self-preferencing behavior.” Roku’s Senior VP for Corporate Affairs and Communications said the bill would “protect consumers in the digital age.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/14/new-antitrust-bill-aims-to-stop-big-tech-from-disadvantaging-rivals.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tech and major tech industry groups piled on AICOA, saying it would result in barriers for small businesses and limit consumer choice.<br /> ** Amazon threatened to boot all third-party sellers from their platform in AICOA passed. Amazon had reached out to companies on its online marketplace about the bill, warning that the legislation could lead to them to stop giving other companies the ability to sell their products via the Amazon marketplace.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/antitrust-tech-bills-gain-bipartisan-momentum-in-senate-11637836202&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Big Tech deployed industry groups to attack AICOA on their behalf.<br /> *** The [[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]] called AICOA a “radical” bill that was “arbitrary and inconsistent.” The president of CCIA said the bill would “hamstring” the leading Big Tech companies and “could prevent innovations that consumers [relied] upon like Amazon Basics and same day delivery for Amazon Prime. The CCIA believed antitrust bills for Big Tech would end up “fundamentally undermining U.S. tech competitiveness” and give “an unearned advantage to foreign rivals.”&lt;ref&gt;https://springboardccia.com/2021/12/16/the-senates-haphazard-and-arbitrary-anti-tech-bills/&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/577147-technology-antitrust-legislation-could-slow-product-innovation&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** [[Chamber of Progress]]’ CEO warned that AICOA would take a “hammer” to beloved tech products. The CEO said the bill wouldn’t “do anything to make the internet better for families.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726897/amazon-apple-google-app-stores-marketplace-antitrust-competition-klobuchar-grassley&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The [[Connected Commerce Council]] suggested AICOA would lead to more dangerous online marketplaces and app stores. The Connected Commerce Council said AICOA would make Amazon “look like a street corner flea market” rather than “a powerful sales tool.” It further alleged that the passage of AICOA would lead to Apple’s App Store “having less control over product security and data harvesting apps.” It also warned that AICOA could force Facebook to spin off Instagram leading to small businesses losing “the benefits of platform integration and access to capital.” The Council’s President said AICOA was “a way to punish companies for giving their customers what they want[ed] when they want[ed] it.”&lt;ref&gt;https://connectedcouncil.org/congressional-misfire-will-crush-small-businesses/&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/small-business-advocacy-group-asks-lawmakers-to-rethink-big-tech-regulation-strategy/article_f9e77434-3282-11ec-8e85-9f20f003476a.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tech’s opposition to AICOA stood in stark contrast to their push for an open and free internet when they defended net neutrality. Every major tech company pushed for net neutrality and put their weight behind efforts to save it.<br /> ** Amazon, Google, and Facebook supported Net Neutrality Rules. WIRED noted that Big Tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google “[planned] to throw their collective weight behind efforts to save Net Neutrality. The tech giants even joined legal battles fighting against the repeal of Net Neutrality rules.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/story/big-techs-fight-for-net-neutrality-moves-behind-the-scenes/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** During the Net Neutrality debates, Big Tech companies acknowledged an open internet drove innovation on the web and increased economic growth. In 2014, Amazon, Facebook and Google joined a letter supporting Net Neutrality which said innovation in the internet space “happened in a world without discrimination” and argued that an open internet was “a central reason why the internet remain[ed] an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth.”<br /> ** Big Tech Companies threw their weight behind legal challenges opposing the repeal of Net Neutrality but used industry groups to do so. The [[Internet Association]], which represented Big Tech companies like Facebook and Google, joined a legal fight to protect net neutrality. The New York Times said the move “made clear for the first time that Facebook, Google, Netflix and other large tech firms would put their reputations and financial clout behind the [Net Neutrality] challenge.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/technology/net-neutrality-lawsuit.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Industry groups for Big Tech were fierce in their support of Net Neutrality. The Internet Association’s chief executive, Michael Beckerman, said repealing Net Neutrality “defie[d] the will of a bipartisan majority of Americans and fail[ed] to preserve a free and open internet.” The Internet Association had long fought for Net Neutrality. In 2014, it stated that the FCC “must act to create strong, enforceable Net Neutrality rules for mobile and wireline networks.” It submitted comments to the FCC “urging commissioners to take strong and decisive action to guarantee an open internet.” The Internet Association’s Chief Executive said the “segregation of the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes [would] distort the market, discourage innovation and harm internet users.” The Internet Association also said that an “open and decentralized” model for the internet was “precisely what enabled the internet to become one of the greatest engines for growth, prosperity and progress” and believed the internet should be “free from [...] anticompetitive behavior.”&lt;ref&gt;https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571681753c44d835a440c8b5/t/573d28497c65e401e66174f3/1463625801892/Company-Sign-On-Letter.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tech platforms themselves were vocal about the need to protect net neutrality, saying it ensured competition that benefited consumers<br /> ** Amazon said Net Neutrality and an open internet had guarded against anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices. Amazon believed there needed to be “rules to protect the open internet and guard against anti-consumer and anti-competitive activities.” In 2017, Amazon lobbied the FCC in person to protect net neutrality. When Net Neutrality was repealed, Amazon’s chief technology officer went on twitter to post that he was “extremely disappointed in the FCC decision to remove Net Neutrality protections.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-tech.html&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/business/fcc-net-neutrality-reactions/index.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Apple called for “strong, enforceable open internet protections” and safeguarding the web from artificial barriers for new online services. Apple claimed that the repeal of Net Neutrality would “fundamentally” alter the internet to the detriment of consumers, businesses and innovation. The company said an open internet “ensure[d] that hundreds of millions of consumers [got] the experience they wante[d].” Apple warned that paid prioritization arrangements resulting from Net Neutrality’s repeal would result in “fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation.” The company feared that repealing Net Neutrality would lead to ISPs being able to “pick internet winners and losers” instead of allowing the consumer to do so. Apple worried any barriers to entry resulting from the repeal of Net Neutrality would result in “an internet with distorted competition” and “create artificial barriers to entry for new online services.” Apple said those barriers would make it “harder for tomorrow’s innovations to attract investment and succeed.”&lt;ref&gt;https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10830069155074/NN%20reply%20comments%20(final).pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Facebook said it supported Net Neutrality because it gave everyone the ability to “access all the opportunities that came with the internet.” In a Facebook post, Mark Zuckerberg noted his support for Net Neutrality and the FCC’s rules that ensured the internet continued to be an open platform for everyone. Zuckerberg said “if we want everyone in the world to have access to all the opportunities that come with the internet, we need to keep the internet free and open.” Sheryl Sandberg said the repeal of Net Neutrality was “disappointing and harmful” and believed “an open internet was critical for new ideas and economic opportunity.” Facebook said it was “ready to work” with policymakers “on a framework” to protect an open internet. The platform said it “continued to support strong Net Neutrality protections that ensure[d] the internet remain[ed] open for everyone.” Facebook said it was “disappointed” that the FCC proposed repealing Net Neutrality in the first place because it “ensure[d] the internet remained open for everyone.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-supports-net-neutrality.html&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://thehill.com/policy/technology/364964-facebook-coo-slams-fccs-net-neutrality-roll-back&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Google had been fighting for Net Neutrality since 2006, when co-founder Sergey Brin traveled to D.C. to visit with lawmakers and defend an open internet. In 2006, Brin met with lawmakers to press for legislation that would prevent internet providers from charging sites more for fast content delivery. He acknowledged that Google could cut deals with internet providers but believed Google searches were only valuable if consumers could quickly access the sites listed in the results. Brin also noted his belief that the FCC’s 2005 policy statement on an open internet did not go far enough and called for stronger language. Google “kept a pretty low profile” during the 2017 debates on Net Neutrality but did say the current rules were “working well” and that it was “disappointed” by the proposal.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/googles-brin-lobbies-for-net-neutrality/&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-tech.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> **Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in 2007: “The internet has created this remarkable set of free markets, open competition, competitive growth, and we need to keep it free and open. It’s actually important! If it goes the other way, we’ve got a serious problem.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9uy1o6-azI&amp;t=133s&amp;ab_channel=Google&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Despite their pledge to support an open &amp; equitable internet, Big Tech engaged in some of the most anti-competitive practices possible. <br /> ** Amazon dominates the e-market space, giving them immense insight on consumer trends, which it uses to rip off its third-party sellers' products.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2020/06/13/if-amazon-is-guilty-of-anti-competitive-practices-who-did-it-learn-themfrom/?sh=1958542f3223&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> **Amazon’s colossal growth gave it outsized power in the online marketplace. 89% of consumers were more likely to buy products from Amazon than other e-commerce sites. The Wall Street Journal noted that as Amazon grew, “so ha[d] its capacity to take on an ever-growing array of competitors.” Forbes further noted that for third-party sellers, “competing directly with Amazon for shopper attention [was] an uphill battle.” Amazon did in fact “exercise total power over the third-party sellers on its platform” Forbes noted. Not only did they exercise their power on their platform, they also barred sellers from using FedEx ground for Prime deliveries. If sellers wanted to use FedEx, they’d have to pay for its more expensive Express Service.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.forbes.com/sites/kirimasters/2019/03/20/study-89-of-consumers-are-more-likely-to-buy-products-from-amazon-than-other-e-commerce-sites/?sh=ffd3d584af1e&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Amazon used data gathered on its platform about independent sellers to determine high selling products they could copy, produce and sell through their private label. Amazon was found to be using data about independent sellers on its platform to develop competing products. Using seller data was a common practice at Amazon and discussed openly in meetings. The information from sellers helped Amazon decide how much to price an item, which features of the product to copy or whether to enter a product segment based on its earning potential. Amazon’s drive to swallow competitors led them to produce their own versions of small products like camera tripods and hip shoes. The Wall Street Journal said “no competitor is too small to draw Amazon’s sights.” In fact, Amazon cloned a line of camera tripods created by a small company. The vendor’s sales became a fraction of their original size after Amazon introduced their version of the product. Amazon also ripped off a popular shore made with natural and recycled materials, but they themselves did not use environmentally friendly materials for their shoes and sold them for half the price. More than half of 1,000 third party sellers said Amazon sold its own product that directly competed with theirs. Amazon’s response to their anti-competitive practices was essentially ‘that’s just business.’ The company said ripping off popular products was “a common practice across the retail industry.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayfair-allbirds-antitrust-11608235127&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Apple’s reign over their App Store allowed them to place their own apps at the top of search results.<br /> ** The Wall Street Journal found that Apple’s mobile apps routinely appeared first in search results ahead of competitors in its App Store. The Washington Post noted that Apple had a monopoly on how consumers accessed apps on the iPhone. Apple’s App Store had “helped fuel Apple’s remarkable growth” according to the New York Times.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-search-results-thwarting-competitors-11563897221&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Apple abused its control over the App Store by downgrading popular apps when they came out with a competing product. After its release, Apple placed its own Apple Books app above the #1 ranked audiobook app, Audiobooks.com. The downgrade in search results led to a 25% decline in Audiobooks.com’s daily app download rate. Worse, Apple even removed apps from the App Store when they directly competed with one of their products. After introducing a screen time feature on the iPhone, Apple began removing similar apps that were widely popular among users, claiming those apps violated App Store rules. The company removed or restricted 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental control apps after they released their own screen time tracker. One of the most popular parental-control apps saw their business plummet after Apple forced changes to its app that made it less useful than Apples.<br /> * Facebook engaged in far-reaching anti-competitive practices to ensure their dominance would not be diminished.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-search-results-thwarting-competitors-11563897221&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/technology/apple-screen-time-trackers.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Facebook acquired an app that allowed it to detect early competitive threats and acquire, copy or bury them in response. In 2013, Facebook bought an apple called Onavo, which allowed the platform to detect early competitive threats. Onavo helped inform and influence Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp for $22 billion in 2014. The platform used the app to identify WhatsApp as their biggest competitor. Onavo showed that WhatsApp was sending more than twice as many messages per day as Facebook’s messenger app. The UK Parliament said Facebook used Onavo to conduct global surveys on the usage of mobile apps by consumers as well as the usage of mobile apps by customers. The FTC alleged that Facebook bought Instagram because it was an “existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/snap-detailed-facebooks-aggressive-tactics-in-project-voldemort-dossier-11569236404&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The FTC said Facebook had engaged in illegal buy or bury schemes to “maintain its dominance” which “suppressed innovation.” The FTC alleged that Facebook engaged in illegal buy-or-bury schemes “to main its dominance.” They added that Facebook’s actions had “suppressed innovation and product quality improvements.” The FTC believed Facebook had “severely hamper[ed] the ability of rivals and would-be rivals to compete on merit.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/08/ftc-alleges-facebook-resorted-illegal-buy-or-bury-scheme-crush-competition-after-string-failed&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Facebook would threaten to cut off third-party software developers from plugging into their platform if those third parties made competing products. When Twitter released the video feature Vine, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook. When Facebook approached Snapchat and Foursquare about an acquisition, Zuckerberg said they either had to let Facebook buy them or it would copy their products and make operating more difficult, which it did: Facebook later discouraged influencers from referencing Snapchat on their Instagram accounts, saying those who did reference Snapchat risked losing their “verified” status.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/facebook-antitrust-monopoly.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Google used its mammoth reach in the smartphone and search space to ensure their products were the default apps and search engine on devices<br /> ** Google was sued by the Department of Justice for incentivizing Apple and Verizon to use their search engine instead of other search engines. The Department of Justice took issue with Google’s agreement with Apple to feature Google as the preselected search engine on iPhones and other devices.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.vox.com/recode/21524710/google-antitrust-lawsuit-doj-search-trump-bill-barr&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Google required phone manufacturers using Android’s OS to exclusively pre-install Google’s apps and not competitors apps. Google would not give phone makers the Google Play App Store if they did not pre-install Google Search, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. In 2018, The European Commission fined Google $5 billion for their practice of requiring phone makers to install their apps.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hubbard%20Testimony.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Google buried its comparison-shopping competitors in search results, at times placing them on the fourth results page. The European Commission fined Google $2.7 billion for burying its competitors in search results.<br /> ** Google partnered with Facebook on ad buying after Facebook floated moving into the ad space, giving Facebook a sweetheart deal, including double the time to bid on ads. After Facebook announced that it was testing a move into the ad space, Google offered Facebook a sweetheart deal to be an ad partner with them instead. During ad auctions, Google gave Facebook 300 milliseconds to bid for ads whereas other partner companies had just 160 milliseconds or less to bid. Google did not give other ad partners the same generous terms that Facebook received. The New York Times observed that the disclosure of Google’s sweetheart deal with Facebook to partner on ads had “renewed concerns about how the biggest technology companies band together to close off competition.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/technology/google-facebook-ad-deal-antitrust.html&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Links_to_Americans_for_Tax_Reform_and_ALEC&diff=387 2022-03-21T15:05:57Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>''As evident by recent case in North Dakota''&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/14/technology/north-dakota-tech-apps.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * 2021: A bill introduced in the North Dakota legislature sought to crack down on Apple and Google’s anticompetitive conduct in their app stores.<br /> <br /> * New York Times reported that Koch Network Group Americans for Prosperity sided with Apple and Google against the app store antitrust bill in North Dakota.<br /> * ALEC lobbied North Dakota legislators to vote against the app store antitrust bill.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.protocol.com/policy/apple-google-lobbyists-arizona-bill&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Americans for Tax Reform lobbied Arizona legislators to vote against an amendment similar to the app store antitrust bill that was proposed in North Dakota.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/inside-apples-push-kill-state-app-store-bills&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Google has funded both Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC''<br /> <br /> * Google listed Americans For Tax Reform as one of the third-party, tax-exempt groups to which its government affairs and public policy team gave one of its “most substantial” contributions.&lt;ref&gt;https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/eebf00218633474c539c9a80642dd52b32770bbf2b2fc1f24013263df783cee1911a88176275172a8c054b37063152c547b58ca7c50696f8dc4841a6a1696feb&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Google funded the American Legislative Exchange Council until 2014 when it broke from the organization over its views on climate change.<br /> ** Google had served on ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, which the Washington Post reported had developed proposals that may have been “enticing to tech companies.”&lt;ref&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/22/google-were-parting-with-the-climate-change-skeptics-at-alec/&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** U.S. News &amp; World Report: “For years, tech giants like Facebook, Google and Yahoo with deep roots in both libertarianism and the laissez faire tech culture of Silicon Valley had managed to find common cause with the American Legislative Exchange Council.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/09/29/silicon-valleys-done-with-american-legislative-exchange-council&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Google claimed it left ALEC because of its anti-climate change efforts, but ALEC had been “deliberately confusing climate science for years” and “hasn’t even been subtle about it.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Despite-recent-split-from-conservative-group-5781594.php&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** San Francisco Chronicle Headline: &quot;Despite Recent Split From Conservative Group, Google’s Connections To Climate Change Denial Runs Deep&quot;<br /> <br /> ''Apple has been a member of ALEC and donated to Americans for Tax Reform''<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform rejected arguments that Apple was engaging in anticompetitive conduct in its app store.<br /> ** Americans for Tax Reform accused Spotify of “fighting dirty” for accusing Apple of engaging in anticompetitive behavior in the app store.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Despite-recent-split-from-conservative-group-5781594.php&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Americans for Tax Reform dismissed accusations that Apple’s App Store discriminated against apps that were not its own, and said it was “very transparent” about its policies.&lt;ref&gt;Americans for Tax Reform, Press Release, 7/30/20&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Americans for Tax Reform opposed a European Union decision that would require Apple to pay $14 billion because it used Ireland as a tax haven.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.atr.org/eu-should-overturn-apple-ruling/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Apple was a member of ALEC until around 2013 when disclosures about how ALEC operated and its controversial “model legislation” activities pushed corporate sponsors, including Apple, to cancel their memberships.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/09/26/google-facebook-and-other-tech-titans-ditch-alec-over-global-warming&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Americans for Tax Reform is a dark money group''<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform was a member of ALEC and five of its staff members attended ALEC’s annual meeting in 2019.&lt;ref&gt;https://documented.net/reporting/revealed-alec-annual-meeting-attendees-list-includes-trump-administration-and-2020-campaign-officials&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Americans for Tax Reform received significant funding from corporate interests, particularly those in the pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and tobacco industries.&lt;ref&gt;http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform/&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist were key players in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.<br /> ** 2006: The Senate Indian Affairs Committee found that Americans For Tax Reform served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Jack Abramoff’s clients to “surreptitiously finance grassroots lobbying campaigns.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800983.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The Senate Indian Affairs Committee found that Grover Norquist was an “avid participant’ in Jack Abramoff’s schemes to channel money from affluent clients, especially Native American gaming interests, to former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed.<br /> <br /> * The Oregon Justice Department investigated Americans for Tax Reform for collecting money from Oregon business leaders and trade groups and then routing it into an Oregon anti-tax group in what authorities called a “laundering scheme.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * 2012: Center for Responsive Politics found that Americans for Tax Reform used more than 51 percent of its spending on campaign activities, which tested IRS guidance that prevented tax-exempt groups from using the majority of their spending on campaign activities.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/atrs-tax-forms-raise-questions-about-use-of-crossroads-grant-social-welfare-purpose.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * 2012: Americans for Tax Reform told the FEC that it spent $15.8 million altogether on independent expenditures, but told the IRS it spent only $9.8 million on direct and indirect campaign activity.<br /> ** Center for Responsive Politics found Americans for Tax Reform used at least a sizeable amount the $26.4 million grant it got from Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS to fund its political ads.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.propublica.org/article/new-tax-return-shows-karl-roves-group-spent-more-on-politics-than-it-said&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * 2010: Americans for Tax Reform reported to the FEC that it spent $4.1 million on independent expenditures, but only reported $1.9 million in political spending to the IRS.<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform Foundation took a pandemic small business loan between $150,000 and $300,000 even though it advocated for restraint in government spending.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-06/grover-norquist-s-anti-spending-group-took-small-business-relief?sref=419JXCrQ&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Grover Norquist, the Executive Director of ATR, equated tax collection with getting mugged on the street and suggested that arguments for higher taxes on rich people echoed the arguments Nazis used to justify their targeting of Jews.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Grover Norquist: “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.&quot;<br /> ** Grover Norquist fought to privatize K-12 education and Social Security and became involved in funding union busting.<br /> * Americans for Tax Reform has received at least $14,500 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/480918408/01_2020_prefixes_47-51%2F480918408_201812_990PF_2020012117047703&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Americans for Tax Reform Foundation has received more than $685,000 from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.&lt;ref&gt;http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform-americans-for-tax-reform-foundation/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund’s donors were largely unknown, but several major conservative donors reported contributions to them, including the Koch brothers, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Devos Family and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.desmog.com/who-donors-trust/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Conservative Transparency: “It is widely noted that [DonorsTrust] &amp; [Donors Capital Fund] are a part of the ‘Koch Network.’&quot;<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform had received more than $37 million from conservative dark money groups and foundations, including $30 million from Crossroads GPS and $4.5 million from the Koch Network’s Center to Protect Patient Rights.<br /> ** Crossroads GPS was a conservative dark money group founded by Karl Rove that caused the FEC to issue new guidance for independent expenditures because of how much money it spent in elections.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/karl-rove-crossroads-gps-is-dead-long-live-dark-money-operation/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a bill mill for conservative causes''<br /> <br /> * USA Today reported that between 2010 and 2018, bills based on ALEC models were introduced nearly 2,900 times at the state level and in Congress, with more than 600 becoming law.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/03/alec-american-legislative-exchange-council-model-bills-republican-conservative-devos-gingrich/3162357002/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The Guardian reported that ALEC was a “secretive ‘bill mill’ responsible for spreading rightwing legislation across” the United States.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/04/alec-rightwing-group-lawsuit&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** New York Times reported that ALEC drafted model bills that “broadly advance a pro-business, socially conservative agenda.”<br /> <br /> * Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman found that ALEC wielded “considerable influence in state legislatures,” the bills it promoted found their way into a majority of state legislatures and the percentage of their bills that passed was “strikingly high” compared to others that passed.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.brookings.edu/articles/alecs-influence-over-lawmaking-in-state-legislatures/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Mother Jones: “With more than 2,400 state lawmakers as members—roughly one third of the nation’s total—ALEC is a year-round clearinghouse for business-friendly legislation.”<br /> <br /> * USA Today reported that ALEC “flourished because it also offers conservative Republican elected officials a social network, access to campaign donors and a blueprint for how to accelerate their political careers.&quot;<br /> * USA Today reported that many of ALEC’s model bills “amount[ed] to wish lists for special interests, have become pervasive in the American legislative process.”<br /> ** Bloomberg Businessweek reported that ALEC created “model legislation” that corporations could suggest to state legislators and corporations have even written bullet points of a piece of legislation.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-01/what-occupy-wall-street-gets-wrong-about-alec?sref=419JXCrQ&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington argued what was problematic about ALEC was it gave corporations a vote and a veto that was equal to the power of state legislators and gave them a “direct plug into the system.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/alec-funding-crisis-big-donors-trayvon-martin&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman: &quot;One feature that separates ALEC from other lobbying ventures is that it partners with corporations whose interests span the space of conservative issues.”<br /> <br /> * New York Times reported that ALEC’s rules gave corporations a “great deal of influence on the task forces, where model legislation must first clear a preliminary vote before going to the board.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** New York Times reported that ALEC bylaws allowed lawmakers to be removed from task force leadership for any reason but only allowed corporate members to be removed “with cause.”<br /> <br /> * Arizona congresswoman Debbie Lesko acknowledged that ALEC was about corporations having influence at the state level.<br /> * Mother Jones reported that what was troubling about ALEC was how the ideas and model bills were intentionally “divorced” from their source.<br /> ** Mother Jones: “ALEC might better be described as one of the nation’s most powerful—and least known— corporate lobbies.”<br /> ** Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman: &quot;ALEC is notoriously secretive about the process by which members draft and approve model legislation.”<br /> <br /> * New York Times: “The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The Guardian: “ALEC's critics have accused it of violating tax laws by lobbying on behalf of rightwing legislation that advances the interests of its corporate members.”<br /> ** Bloomberg Businessweek: “ALEC creates the fiction that these bills grow wild in the fertile, democratic loam of America’s state legislatures.&quot;<br /> <br /> * Common Cause accused ALEC of abusing its tax-exempt status. Documented Investigations said corporations and corporate lobbyists saw a big return on their investment in ALEC because it was often much cheaper than a direct lobbying campaign.<br /> * USA Today reported that ALEC lost influence in 2012 after Trayvon Martin was shot, which sparked scrutiny of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law, which was sponsored by ALEC members.<br /> * Big corporations started leaving ALEC following the shooting of Trayvon Martin after ALEC came under “heavy, public scrutiny” for pushing “stand your ground” laws in the states.<br /> * The Guardian reported that ALEC was supported by “some of the largest rightwing foundations” in the United States, including the Koch brothers, the Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust.<br /> * Mother Jones: “Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations—including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and The American Petroleum Institute—the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2002/09/ghostwriting-law/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * ALEC was primarily financed by its corporate members who spent at least $12,000 annually to be members. Corporate members had to pay an additional $5,000 to be on one of the organization’s task forces, which drafted and debated “model legislation” in secret.<br /> * ALEC has received more than $1.6 million from the Charles Koch Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;http://conservativetransparency.org/recipient/american-legislative-exchange-council/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * ALEC has received almost one million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.<br /> ** DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund’s donors were largely unknown, but several major conservative donors reported contributions to them, including the Koch brothers, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Devos Family and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.<br /> ** Conservative Transparency: “It is widely noted that [DonorsTrust] &amp; [Donors Capital Fund] are a part of the ‘Koch Network.’&quot;<br /> <br /> * ALEC has received more than $3.5 million from conservative foundations, including the Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Links_to_Americans_for_Tax_Reform_and_ALEC&diff=386 2022-03-21T14:51:18Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>''As evident by recent case in North Dakota''&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/14/technology/north-dakota-tech-apps.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * 2021: A bill introduced in the North Dakota legislature sought to crack down on Apple and Google’s anticompetitive conduct in their app stores.<br /> <br /> * New York Times reported that Koch Network Group Americans for Prosperity sided with Apple and Google against the app store antitrust bill in North Dakota.<br /> * ALEC lobbied North Dakota legislators to vote against the app store antitrust bill.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.protocol.com/policy/apple-google-lobbyists-arizona-bill&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Americans for Tax Reform lobbied Arizona legislators to vote against an amendment similar to the app store antitrust bill that was proposed in North Dakota.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/inside-apples-push-kill-state-app-store-bills&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Google has funded both Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC''<br /> <br /> * Google listed Americans For Tax Reform as one of the third-party, tax-exempt groups to which its government affairs and public policy team gave one of its “most substantial” contributions.&lt;ref&gt;https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/eebf00218633474c539c9a80642dd52b32770bbf2b2fc1f24013263df783cee1911a88176275172a8c054b37063152c547b58ca7c50696f8dc4841a6a1696feb&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Google funded the American Legislative Exchange Council until 2014 when it broke from the organization over its views on climate change.<br /> ** Google had served on ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, which the Washington Post reported had developed proposals that may have been “enticing to tech companies.”&lt;ref&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/22/google-were-parting-with-the-climate-change-skeptics-at-alec/&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** U.S. News &amp; World Report: “For years, tech giants like Facebook, Google and Yahoo with deep roots in both libertarianism and the laissez faire tech culture of Silicon Valley had managed to find common cause with the American Legislative Exchange Council.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/09/29/silicon-valleys-done-with-american-legislative-exchange-council&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Google claimed it left ALEC because of its anti-climate change efforts, but ALEC had been “deliberately confusing climate science for years” and “hasn’t even been subtle about it.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Despite-recent-split-from-conservative-group-5781594.php&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** San Francisco Chronicle Headline: &quot;Despite Recent Split From Conservative Group, Google’s Connections To Climate Change Denial Runs Deep&quot;<br /> <br /> ''Apple has been a member of ALEC and donated to Americans for Tax Reform''<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform rejected arguments that Apple was engaging in anticompetitive conduct in its app store.<br /> ** Americans for Tax Reform accused Spotify of “fighting dirty” for accusing Apple of engaging in anticompetitive behavior in the app store.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Despite-recent-split-from-conservative-group-5781594.php&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Americans for Tax Reform dismissed accusations that Apple’s App Store discriminated against apps that were not its own, and said it was “very transparent” about its policies.&lt;ref&gt;Americans for Tax Reform, Press Release, 7/30/20&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Americans for Tax Reform opposed a European Union decision that would require Apple to pay $14 billion because it used Ireland as a tax haven.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.atr.org/eu-should-overturn-apple-ruling/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Apple was a member of ALEC until around 2013 when disclosures about how ALEC operated and its controversial “model legislation” activities pushed corporate sponsors, including Apple, to cancel their memberships.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/09/26/google-facebook-and-other-tech-titans-ditch-alec-over-global-warming&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Americans for Tax Reform is a dark money group''<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform was a member of ALEC and five of its staff members attended ALEC’s annual meeting in 2019.&lt;ref&gt;https://documented.net/reporting/revealed-alec-annual-meeting-attendees-list-includes-trump-administration-and-2020-campaign-officials&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Americans for Tax Reform received significant funding from corporate interests, particularly those in the pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and tobacco industries.&lt;ref&gt;http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform/&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist were key players in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.<br /> ** 2006: The Senate Indian Affairs Committee found that Americans For Tax Reform served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Jack Abramoff’s clients to “surreptitiously finance grassroots lobbying campaigns.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800983.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The Senate Indian Affairs Committee found that Grover Norquist was an “avid participant’ in Jack Abramoff’s schemes to channel money from affluent clients, especially Native American gaming interests, to former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed.<br /> <br /> * The Oregon Justice Department investigated Americans for Tax Reform for collecting money from Oregon business leaders and trade groups and then routing it into an Oregon anti-tax group in what authorities called a “laundering scheme.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * 2012: Center for Responsive Politics found that Americans for Tax Reform used more than 51 percent of its spending on campaign activities, which tested IRS guidance that prevented tax-exempt groups from using the majority of their spending on campaign activities.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/atrs-tax-forms-raise-questions-about-use-of-crossroads-grant-social-welfare-purpose.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * 2012: Americans for Tax Reform told the FEC that it spent $15.8 million altogether on independent expenditures, but told the IRS it spent only $9.8 million on direct and indirect campaign activity.<br /> ** Center for Responsive Politics found Americans for Tax Reform used at least a sizeable amount the $26.4 million grant it got from Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS to fund its political ads.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.propublica.org/article/new-tax-return-shows-karl-roves-group-spent-more-on-politics-than-it-said&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * 2010: Americans for Tax Reform reported to the FEC that it spent $4.1 million on independent expenditures, but only reported $1.9 million in political spending to the IRS.<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform Foundation took a pandemic small business loan between $150,000 and $300,000 even though it advocated for restraint in government spending.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-06/grover-norquist-s-anti-spending-group-took-small-business-relief?sref=419JXCrQ&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Grover Norquist, the Executive Director of ATR, equated tax collection with getting mugged on the street and suggested that arguments for higher taxes on rich people echoed the arguments Nazis used to justify their targeting of Jews.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Grover Norquist: “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.&quot;<br /> ** Grover Norquist fought to privatize K-12 education and Social Security and became involved in funding union busting.<br /> * Americans for Tax Reform has received at least $14,500 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/480918408/01_2020_prefixes_47-51%2F480918408_201812_990PF_2020012117047703&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Americans for Tax Reform Foundation has received more than $685,000 from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.&lt;ref&gt;http://conservativetransparency.org/org/americans-for-tax-reform-americans-for-tax-reform-foundation/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund’s donors were largely unknown, but several major conservative donors reported contributions to them, including the Koch brothers, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Devos Family and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.desmog.com/who-donors-trust/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Conservative Transparency: “It is widely noted that [DonorsTrust] &amp; [Donors Capital Fund] are a part of the ‘Koch Network.’&quot;<br /> <br /> * Americans for Tax Reform had received more than $37 million from conservative dark money groups and foundations, including $30 million from Crossroads GPS and $4.5 million from the Koch Network’s Center to Protect Patient Rights.<br /> ** Crossroads GPS was a conservative dark money group founded by Karl Rove that caused the FEC to issue new guidance for independent expenditures because of how much money it spent in elections.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/karl-rove-crossroads-gps-is-dead-long-live-dark-money-operation/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a bill mill for conservative causes''<br /> <br /> * USA Today reported that between 2010 and 2018, bills based on ALEC models were introduced nearly 2,900 times at the state level and in Congress, with more than 600 becoming law.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/03/alec-american-legislative-exchange-council-model-bills-republican-conservative-devos-gingrich/3162357002/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** The Guardian reported that ALEC was a “secretive ‘bill mill’ responsible for spreading rightwing legislation across” the United States.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/04/alec-rightwing-group-lawsuit&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** New York Times reported that ALEC drafted model bills that “broadly advance a pro-business, socially conservative agenda.”<br /> <br /> * Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman found that ALEC wielded “considerable influence in state legislatures,” the bills it promoted found their way into a majority of state legislatures and the percentage of their bills that passed was “strikingly high” compared to others that passed.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.brookings.edu/articles/alecs-influence-over-lawmaking-in-state-legislatures/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Mother Jones: “With more than 2,400 state lawmakers as members—roughly one third of the nation’s total—ALEC is a year-round clearinghouse for business-friendly legislation.”<br /> <br /> * USA Today reported that ALEC “flourished because it also offers conservative Republican elected officials a social network, access to campaign donors and a blueprint for how to accelerate their political careers.&quot;<br /> * USA Today reported that many of ALEC’s model bills “amount[ed] to wish lists for special interests, have become pervasive in the American legislative process.”<br /> ** Bloomberg Businessweek reported that ALEC created “model legislation” that corporations could suggest to state legislators and corporations have even written bullet points of a piece of legislation.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-01/what-occupy-wall-street-gets-wrong-about-alec?sref=419JXCrQ&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington argued what was problematic about ALEC was it gave corporations a vote and a veto that was equal to the power of state legislators and gave them a “direct plug into the system.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/alec-funding-crisis-big-donors-trayvon-martin&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman: &quot;One feature that separates ALEC from other lobbying ventures is that it partners with corporations whose interests span the space of conservative issues.”<br /> <br /> * New York Times reported that ALEC’s rules gave corporations a “great deal of influence on the task forces, where model legislation must first clear a preliminary vote before going to the board.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** New York Times reported that ALEC bylaws allowed lawmakers to be removed from task force leadership for any reason but only allowed corporate members to be removed “with cause.”<br /> <br /> * Arizona congresswoman Debbie Lesko acknowledged that ALEC was about corporations having influence at the state level.<br /> * Mother Jones reported that what was troubling about ALEC was how the ideas and model bills were intentionally “divorced” from their source.<br /> ** Mother Jones: “ALEC might better be described as one of the nation’s most powerful—and least known— corporate lobbies.”<br /> ** Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman: &quot;ALEC is notoriously secretive about the process by which members draft and approve model legislation.”<br /> <br /> * New York Times: “The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The Guardian: “ALEC's critics have accused it of violating tax laws by lobbying on behalf of rightwing legislation that advances the interests of its corporate members.”<br /> ** Bloomberg Businessweek: “ALEC creates the fiction that these bills grow wild in the fertile, democratic loam of America’s state legislatures.&quot;<br /> <br /> * Common Cause accused ALEC of abusing its tax-exempt status. Documented Investigations said corporations and corporate lobbyists saw a big return on their investment in ALEC because it was often much cheaper than a direct lobbying campaign.<br /> * USA Today reported that ALEC lost influence in 2012 after Trayvon Martin was shot, which sparked scrutiny of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law, which was sponsored by ALEC members.<br /> * Big corporations started leaving ALEC following the shooting of Trayvon Martin after ALEC came under “heavy, public scrutiny” for pushing “stand your ground” laws in the states.<br /> * The Guardian reported that ALEC was supported by “some of the largest rightwing foundations” in the United States, including the Koch brothers, the Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust.<br /> * Mother Jones: “Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations—including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and The American Petroleum Institute—the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2002/09/ghostwriting-law/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * ALEC was primarily financed by its corporate members who spent at least $12,000 annually to be members. Corporate members had to pay an additional $5,000 to be on one of the organization’s task forces, which drafted and debated “model legislation” in secret.<br /> * ALEC has received more than $1.6 million from the Charles Koch Foundation.<br /> * ALEC has received almost one million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.<br /> ** DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund’s donors were largely unknown, but several major conservative donors reported contributions to them, including the Koch brothers, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Devos Family and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.<br /> ** Conservative Transparency: “It is widely noted that [DonorsTrust] &amp; [Donors Capital Fund] are a part of the ‘Koch Network.’&quot;<br /> <br /> * ALEC has received more than $3.5 million from conservative foundations, including the Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_Lying_to_Congress&diff=385 2022-03-18T15:10:26Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Big Tech <br /> ** 2018: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Concluded That Social Media Companies Including Facebook, Twitter &amp; Google “Misrepresented Or Evaded” In Statements To Congress About Russian Influence.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/technology/tech-companies-russian-interference.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Facebook<br /> ** 2021: Facebook Exec Claimed No Internal Concealment Of Docs – Later Reporting Showed Facebook Locking Down Internal Message Boards.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/20/sen-blumenthal-asks-zuckerberg-to-testify-about-instagrams-impact-on-kids.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** 2021: Blumenthal: Facebook Provided “Clearly Evasive And Misleading Answers” On Teen Mental Health And Platform Addiction.<br /> ** 2019: Facebook Forced To Clarify Remarks Zuckerberg Made During Congressional Testimony That Falsely Suggested Company Conducted Fact Checks On Political Ads.&lt;ref&gt;https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/facebook-defends-policy-allowing-false-political-ads-66511943&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** 2018: Zuckerberg Misled Congress On Users’ “Complete Control” Of Data –Facebook Established Partnerships That Gave Third Parties “Deep Access” To Users’ And Their Friends’ Data.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Amazon<br /> ** 2019-2021: Amazon Testified To Congress That Company Did Not Use Seller Data To Compete With Its Own Brand – 2021 Investigations Found Amazon Systemically Used Seller Data To Boost Its Own Products.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/18/amazon-congress-letter-third-party-data/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Google<br /> ** 2021: Google May Have Attempted To Interfere In Congressional Testimony Of Partner Company Match Group.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/senators-ask-google-about-phone-call-to-match-on-day-before-testimony.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** 2012: Google Testified To Congress That Data Collection Via Street View Project Was Unintentional – FCC Report On Issue Found It Was A Deliberate Act.&lt;ref&gt;https://thehill.com/policy/technology/229473-lawmakers-question-whether-google-misled-congress&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=383 2022-03-18T12:56:43Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>== Big Tech Wiki Page ==<br /> * Big Tech<br /> **Big Tech, Lobbying, and Proxy Organizations Funded By Big Tech<br /> ***Trade/Proxy Organizations funded by Big Tech<br /> ****[[TechNet]]<br /> ****[[ACT - The App Association]]<br /> ****[[Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)]]<br /> ****[[NetChoice]]<br /> ****[[Consumer Technology Association (CTA)]]<br /> ****[[Developers Alliance]]<br /> ****[[Internet Association]]<br /> ****[[Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)]]<br /> ****[[New York Coalition for Independent Work]]<br /> ****[[American Edge]]<br /> ****[[Download Fairness Coalition]]<br /> ****[[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]]<br /> ****[[Chamber of Progress]]<br /> ****[[Connected Commerce Council]]<br /> ****[[Financial Innovation Now (FIN)]]<br /> ***Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research<br /> ****[[Global Antitrust Institute]]<br /> ****[[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]<br /> ****[[Links to Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC]]<br /> ****[[Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech's lobbying vs other Toxic Industries]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech Influence Maps]]<br /> <br /> *[[Big Tech and National Security]]<br /> **[[Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Adversaries]]<br /> **[[Disinformation and Big Tech as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Hacks and Vulnerabilities as a Security Threat]]<br /> *Big Tech and Financial Services<br /> **[[Big Tech entering Financial Services]]<br /> ***[[Google Pay]]<br /> ***[[Amazon]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Libra/Crypto]]<br /> ***[[Apple Card and Apple Pay]]<br /> ***[[Consumer Financial Bureau Regulation|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation]]<br /> ***[[Further Concerns]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Regulation]]<br /> **[[Small Business Support of Regulation]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Climate]]<br /> *Big Tech and Social Justice<br /> **[[Lack of Latinos in Big Tech]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Spanish Language Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Anti-Vax Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech Lying to Congress]]<br /> **[[Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Algorithmic Bias]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *Amazon<br /> **[[Amazon and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Amazon and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Workers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Taxes]]<br /> **[[Amazon and National Security]]<br /> *Apple<br /> **[[Apple and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Apple and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Apple and Privacy]]<br /> **[[Apple and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Apple and Workers]]<br /> **[[Apple and China]]<br /> **[[Apple and Taxes]]<br /> *Facebook<br /> **Facebook and Consumers<br /> ***[[Facebook Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Is Building Another Monopoly In &quot;The Metaverse&quot;]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Facing Pressure from Consumers, Regulators]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Cryptocurrency Not Trusted by Lawmakers]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Facebook's Oversight Board]]<br /> **Facebook and Dissent<br /> ***[[Facebook and Whistleblowers]]<br /> ***[[NYU Study on Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook's False Claim To Supporting Regulation]]<br /> **Facebook and User Harm<br /> ***[[Allowing Illegal Actions for Ads]]<br /> ***[[Failures to Keep Children Safe]]<br /> ***[[Facebook and Mental Health]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Taxes]]<br /> *Google<br /> **[[Google and Consumers]]<br /> ***[[Google Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> **[[Google and Small Businesses]]<br /> **[[Google and Koch Connections]]<br /> **[[Google Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Google and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Google and National Security]]<br /> **[[Google and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_and_Climate&diff=382 2022-03-18T12:55:41Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>All Four Big Tech Companies Are Major Purveyors Of Climate Misinformation:<br /> <br /> * Amazon: Amazon’s algorithm promoted books declaring climate change was a hoax. Amazon.com’s main search function — the ‘Sort by: Featured’ display option, which is the default way Amazon filters its enormous catalog of products when customers go looking for something — gave prominent real estate to books that downplay or outright deny the reality of climate change. A report from the non-profit Advance Democracy found that 20% of the top 60 search results for &quot;climate change&quot; returned products containing 'misinformation about climate change.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-07-26/jeff-bezos-climate-change-amazon-promotes-hoax&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *Apple: Apple does not allow users to report episodes in its Podcasts app for misinformation. A search of “climate change fake,” “climate change hoax,” and “climate scam” in the Podcasts app yielded episodes promoting climate misinformation. Additionally, one of the Top 100 Podcasts episodes on November 10, 2021 blatantly promoted climate misinformation in the title.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-challenge-of-detecting-misinformation-in-podcasting/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Facebook: In 2021, climate misinformation increased 76.7% over the year before – viewed 1.36 million times a day. Studies found that 10 far-right publishers were responsible for nearly 70% of climate misinformation on Facebook. Facebook has declined to remove climate misinformation, as it does with vaccine and election misinfo. Instead, it set up a climate science webpage that is viewed substantially less than climate misinfo on the website. Additionally, in 2020, Facebook allowed oil and gas companies to run nearly 25,000 ads on its website – including ads that violated its own misinformation policies but were not taken down.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/04/climate-misinformation-on-facebook-increasing-substantially-study-says&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Google: YouTube’s algorithm put equal weight on climate science videos and climate denial videos and continued to serve up new climate misinformation to those who viewed similar content. Though Google took steps in October 2021 to demonetize climate denial YouTube videos, it still allowed climate denial content if it was presented as “public discourse.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/why-climate-science-doesn-t-go-viral-on-youtube&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Big Tech Funded Climate Denial Groups And Politicians That Opposed Climate Action:<br /> <br /> * Amazon, Facebook, and Google all maintain federal PACs, and have given substantially to Republicans.<br /> * Amazon, Apple, and Google are members of the Business Roundtable, which opposed climate action by opposing the Build Back Better Act.<br /> * Google is a member of several right-wing organizations that oppose climate action, and, along with Amazon, sponsored the gala of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a climate denialist organization.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-cei.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Big Tech Is Not As Good At Reducing Emissions As They Claim:<br /> <br /> * Amazon and Google provided cloud computing and other web services to Big Oil &amp; Gas companies. Google did not factor these emissions into its emissions calculations. In 2018, 12% of AWS sales went to oil &amp; gas.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/bezos-10-billion-climate-pledge-amazon-climate-impact/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Amazon rapidly expanded its data centers in Virginia, but in 2019, only 12% of these centers used renewable energy.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-google-microsoft-green-clouds-and-hyperscale-data-centers/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Apple’s iPhone 12 Pro Max required 8% more emissions to manufacture than the iPhone 11.<br /> * Additionally, Apple’s opposition to Right to Repair increased emissions and waste by making it harder to reuse technology.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Lack_of_Latinos_in_Big_Tech&diff=381 2022-03-18T02:38:01Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Apple<br /> ** Since releasing workforce demographic data in 2014, Hispanic and Latino workers have consistently been underrepresented in tech &amp; leadership roles at Apple.&lt;ref&gt;https://fortune.com/2014/08/12/apple-diversity-report/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** 2014 data found that only 6% of Apple executives were Latino, while 64% were white.<br /> ** 2015 data once again found that Apple leadership was overwhelmingly white, and that company had failed to increase Hispanic representation in its workforce. WIRED: Apple remained “mostly male and white, especially at its leadership level.”<br /> ** Apple’s 2016 workforce data found that just Latinos made up just 8% of the company’s leadership and 7% of its tech employees. These numbers were significantly lower than the national share of Latino population, which was 17.6%. The Verge Headline: “Apple's US Diversity Barely Improved Last Year”<br /> ** Apple’s November 2017 workforce data showed lack of Latino representation in its highest ranks, including that just 5 of its 107 top executives were from underrepresented minority groups.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-releases-2017-diversity-report-showing-little-progress-2017-11?utm_source=pocket_mylist&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Facebook<br /> ** Since releasing workforce demographic data in 2014, Facebook has shown it underrepresents Latinos in leadership and among tech employees.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.vox.com/2014/6/25/11628350/facebooks-first-diversity-report-just-about-as-bad-as-yahoos-and&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Facebook’s June 2014 workforce data showed it woefully lacked diversity and had a leadership that was just 4% Hispanic.<br /> ** Facebook’s June 2015 workforce data showed it had failed to make any progress toward increasing the diversity and Latino share of its tech workforce.<br /> ** Facebook’s July 2016 workforce data showed that only 3% of its tech employees were Latino. Reuters Headline: “Facebook Makes Little Progress In Race, Gender Diversity: Report”<br /> ** Facebook’s August 2017 workforce data showed no gains for Latinos in its tech workforce and leadership that was still overwhelmingly white. An inclusion consultant said it would take Facebook “more than a decade” to hire “Black and Latino technical talent on par with their graduation rates” at its current rate. CNN Money Headline: “Facebook's Minority Workforce Gains Are ‘Still Disappointing’”<br /> ** Facebook’s July 2018 workforce data found a decline in Hispanics in leadership roles and continued underrepresentation in tech roles. San Jose Mercury News: “Another year, another report that shows little progress on Facebook’s stated effort to diversify its workforce.” USA Today: “Facebook continued to struggle in the areas where the company's diversity has always been in shortest supply: in technical and leadership roles.”<br /> ** Facebook’s July 2019 workforce data showed that Latinos continued to be underrepresented in leadership and tech roles. Silicon Valley Business Journal: Latinos “Are Particularly Underrepresented In Facebook’s Technical And Senior Leadership Roles.”<br /> ** Facebook’s July 2020 workforce data showed it was “still failing Black and Hispanic Employees” and had “failed to meaningfully increase the number of underrepresented groups in its U.S. workforce”, with Latinos underrepresented among “senior leaders”.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/15/21325410/facebook-diversity-report-2020-black-hispanic-women-people-of-color-technical-roles&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Google<br /> ** Since releasing workforce demographic data in 2014, Google has shown it underrepresents Latinos in tech and leadership roles.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/google-discloses-workforce-diversity-data-good&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Google’s May 2014 workforce data showed that Hispanics were drastically underrepresented at the company, with just 2% of its tech workforce Latino. USA Today Headline: “Google Discloses Its (Lack Of) Diversity”<br /> ** Google’s 2015 workforce data found that Latinos saw “no changes in their representation” in tech or leadership roles from the previous year.<br /> ** Google’s June 2016 workforce data against showed “scant progress” in diversifying its workforce, with Hispanics making up just 3% of its total workforce.<br /> ** Google’s June 2018 workforce data again showed little progress toward diversifying its workforce, and that Latinos were being hired at lower rates while leaving at higher rates.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/06/14/google-says-focus-diversity-efforts-black-hispanic-women/703003002/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Google’s 2020 workforce data showed the company’s Latino hiring rate decreased.<br /> ** Google’s 2021 data showed Google’s Latino workforce experienced increased attrition rates.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2021/07/02/google-shows-mixed-results-in-minority-hiring.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Amazon<br /> ** Amazon data found that Latino workers were underrepresented in leadership &amp; higher-paying positions while disproportionately working in warehouse &amp; low-paying positions.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-more-diverse-at-its-warehouses-than-among-white-collar-ranks/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Amazon’s August 2015 workforce data showed Hispanic employees “disproportionately” worked in warehouse and low-skill jobs, while being “underrepresented” in executive and technical jobs.<br /> ** Amazon’s February 2016 workforce data showed, that while the company hired thousands of Latinos “for laborer roles, it managed to hire only a fraction of that amount for office positions.”<br /> ** From February 2016 through 2021, Amazon stopped releasing workforce demographic data. It began releasing data again in 2021 after the New York City Comptroller threatened to oppose the company’s board candidates for the board of directors if it did not.<br /> ** Amazon’s 2021 workforce data showed that Hispanics and Latinos were drastically underrepresented in high-paying and leadership jobs at Amazon while being overrepresented in its lower-paying and warehouse jobs. From 2018 to 2020, Black or Hispanic workers made up 60% of Amazon’s nearly 400,000 U.S. workers hired into its lowest-paying hourly roles. In 2020, nearly 63% of Amazon’s warehouse and call center workers were Black, Latino, Native American or Multiracial compared to 18% of its corporate and tech workers. Black and Latino representation in Amazon’s upper management was eve worse than Walmart’s. Seattle Times: “The pay gap between Amazon warehouse workers and employees in its corporate offices can be stark.” Seattle Times Headline: “New Amazon Data Shows Black, Latino And Female Employees Are Underrepresented In Best-Paid Jobs” Seattle Times Headline: “Amazon’s Workforce Split Sharply Along The Lines Of Race And Gender, New Data Indicates.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/new-amazon-data-shows-black-latino-and-female-employees-are-underrepresented-in-best-paid-jobs/&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_and_Regulation&diff=380 2022-03-18T02:34:45Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Senators Klobuchar and Grassley introduced a bill to keep Big Tech from using their dominance to squelch competition and disadvantage rivals <br /> *Klobuchar and Grassley's bill was widely supported on both sides of the aisle, with 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats co-sponsoring it<br /> ** Klobuchar and Grassley introduced the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’ (AICOA) which would create rules for dominant tech platforms to prevent anti-competitive behavior. A CNBC headline read “Klobuchar, Grassley to lead antitrust bill barring big tech from disadvantaging rivals.” The two said their bill would create rules “for dominant digital platforms to prevent them from abusing their market power to harm competition, online businesses and consumers.” Klobuchar said she was “proud to introduce this much-needed legislation alongside Senator Grassley and a bipartisan group of our colleagues.” Grassley said the bill would “help create a more even playing field and ensure that small businesses were able to compete with [dominant tech] platforms.” The bill was cosponsored by Democratic Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Durbin, Hirono and Warner. The bill’s Republican cosponsors were Senators Daines, Graham, Hawley, Lummis and Kennedy.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/10/support-builds-for-bipartisan-legislation-from-klobuchar-grassley-and-colleagues-to-rein-in-big-tech&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Klobuchar and Grassley's bill was lauded by a bipartisan group of 32 Attorneys General, various consumer groups, and tech companies like Yelp, Spotify, and Roku.<br /> ** A bipartisan coalition of 32 State Attorneys General called for the passage of AICOA, believing the bill would improve antitrust laws. The Attorneys General wrote a letter to Congress urging them to improve the country’s antitrust laws.&lt;ref&gt;https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-leads-bipartisan-coalition-calling-congress-modernize&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** 60 consumer advocacy groups, labor groups and public interest groups supported the passage of AICOA. The groups said passing AICOA would “enhance consumer choice and allow for greater competition.” The co-founder of the group Accountable Tech said AICOA took “direct aim at some of the most exploitative tactics Silicon Valley ha[d] long employed to unfairly entrench their dominance.”&lt;ref&gt;https://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-joins-57-public-interest-groups-urging-swift-passage-of-house-antitrust-bills-to-rein-in-big-tech/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Well-known tech companies similarly saw AICOA as a positive step towards regulating Big Tech’s dominance and anti-competitive behavior. Yelp and Trip Advisor complained that Google had unfairly lowered their sites in search results in favor of their own Google Maps tool. Yelp’s Senior VP of Public Policy said AICOA would “restore competitiveness in the online marketplace.” Spotify’s Head of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer said AICOA would deter “gatekeeper platforms” from distorting the market to help themselves. DuckDuckGo’s CEO said the bill would stop Big Tech from using “self-preferencing behavior.” Roku’s Senior VP for Corporate Affairs and Communications said the bill would “protect consumers in the digital age.”<br /> * Big Tech and major tech industry groups piled on AICOA, saying it would result in barriers for small businesses and limit consumer choice.<br /> ** Amazon threatened to boot all third-party sellers from their platform in AICOA passed. Amazon had reached out to companies on its online marketplace about the bill, warning that the legislation could lead to them to stop giving other companies the ability to sell their products via the Amazon marketplace.<br /> ** Big Tech deployed industry groups to attack AICOA on their behalf.<br /> *** The [[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]] called AICOA a “radical” bill that was “arbitrary and inconsistent.” The president of CCIA said the bill would “hamstring” the leading Big Tech companies and “could prevent innovations that consumers [relied] upon like Amazon Basics and same day delivery for Amazon Prime. The CCIA believed antitrust bills for Big Tech would end up “fundamentally undermining U.S. tech competitiveness” and give “an unearned advantage to foreign rivals.”<br /> ** [[Chamber of Progress]]’ CEO warned that AICOA would take a “hammer” to beloved tech products. The CEO said the bill wouldn’t “do anything to make the internet better for families.”<br /> ** The [[Connected Commerce Council]] suggested AICOA would lead to more dangerous online marketplaces and app stores. The Connected Commerce Council said AICOA would make Amazon “look like a street corner flea market” rather than “a powerful sales tool.” It further alleged that the passage of AICOA would lead to Apple’s App Store “having less control over product security and data harvesting apps.” It also warned that AICOA could force Facebook to spin off Instagram leading to small businesses losing “the benefits of platform integration and access to capital.” The Council’s President said AICOA was “a way to punish companies for giving their customers what they want[ed] when they want[ed] it.”<br /> * Big Tech’s opposition to AICOA stood in stark contrast to their push for an open and free internet when they defended net neutrality. Every major tech company pushed for net neutrality and put their weight behind efforts to save it.<br /> ** Amazon, Google, and Facebook supported Net Neutrality Rules. WIRED noted that Big Tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google “[planned] to throw their collective weight behind efforts to save Net Neutrality. The tech giants even joined legal battles fighting against the repeal of Net Neutrality rules.”<br /> ** During the Net Neutrality debates, Big Tech companies acknowledged an open internet drove innovation on the web and increased economic growth. In 2014, Amazon, Facebook and Google joined a letter supporting Net Neutrality which said innovation in the internet space “happened in a world without discrimination” and argued that an open internet was “a central reason why the internet remain[ed] an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth.”<br /> ** Big Tech Companies threw their weight behind legal challenges opposing the repeal of Net Neutrality but used industry groups to do so. The [[Internet Association]], which represented Big Tech companies like Facebook and Google, joined a legal fight to protect net neutrality. The New York Times said the move “made clear for the first time that Facebook, Google, Netflix and other large tech firms would put their reputations and financial clout behind the [Net Neutrality] challenge.”<br /> ** Industry groups for Big Tech were fierce in their support of Net Neutrality. The Internet Association’s chief executive, Michael Beckerman, said repealing Net Neutrality “defie[d] the will of a bipartisan majority of Americans and fail[ed] to preserve a free and open internet.” The Internet Association had long fought for Net Neutrality. In 2014, it stated that the FCC “must act to create strong, enforceable Net Neutrality rules for mobile and wireline networks.” It submitted comments to the FCC “urging commissioners to take strong and decisive action to guarantee an open internet.” The Internet Association’s Chief Executive said the “segregation of the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes [would] distort the market, discourage innovation and harm internet users.” The Internet Association also said that an “open and decentralized” model for the internet was “precisely what enabled the internet to become one of the greatest engines for growth, prosperity and progress” and believed the internet should be “free from [...] anticompetitive behavior.”<br /> * Big Tech platforms themselves were vocal about the need to protect net neutrality, saying it ensured competition that benefited consumers<br /> ** Amazon said Net Neutrality and an open internet had guarded against anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices. Amazon believed there needed to be “rules to protect the open internet and guard against anti-consumer and anti-competitive activities.” In 2017, Amazon lobbied the FCC in person to protect net neutrality. When Net Neutrality was repealed, Amazon’s chief technology officer went on twitter to post that he was “extremely disappointed in the FCC decision to remove Net Neutrality protections.”<br /> ** Apple called for “strong, enforceable open internet protections” and safeguarding the web from artificial barriers for new online services. Apple claimed that the repeal of Net Neutrality would “fundamentally” alter the internet to the detriment of consumers, businesses and innovation. The company said an open internet “ensure[d] that hundreds of millions of consumers [got] the experience they wante[d].” Apple warned that paid prioritization arrangements resulting from Net Neutrality’s repeal would result in “fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation.” The company feared that repealing Net Neutrality would lead to ISPs being able to “pick internet winners and losers” instead of allowing the consumer to do so. Apple worried any barriers to entry resulting from the repeal of Net Neutrality would result in “an internet with distorted competition” and “create artificial barriers to entry for new online services.” Apple said those barriers would make it “harder for tomorrow’s innovations to attract investment and succeed.”<br /> ** Facebook said it supported Net Neutrality because it gave everyone the ability to “access all the opportunities that came with the internet.” In a Facebook post, Mark Zuckerberg noted his support for Net Neutrality and the FCC’s rules that ensured the internet continued to be an open platform for everyone. Zuckerberg said “if we want everyone in the world to have access to all the opportunities that come with the internet, we need to keep the internet free and open.” Sheryl Sandberg said the repeal of Net Neutrality was “disappointing and harmful” and believed “an open internet was critical for new ideas and economic opportunity.” Facebook said it was “ready to work” with policymakers “on a framework” to protect an open internet. The platform said it “continued to support strong Net Neutrality protections that ensure[d] the internet remain[ed] open for everyone.” Facebook said it was “disappointed” that the FCC proposed repealing Net Neutrality in the first place because it “ensure[d] the internet remained open for everyone.”<br /> ** Google had been fighting for Net Neutrality since 2006, when co-founder Sergey Brin traveled to D.C. to visit with lawmakers and defend an open internet. In 2006, Brin met with lawmakers to press for legislation that would prevent internet providers from charging sites more for fast content delivery. He acknowledged that Google could cut deals with internet providers but believed Google searches were only valuable if consumers could quickly access the sites listed in the results. Brin also noted his belief that the FCC’s 2005 policy statement on an open internet did not go far enough and called for stronger language. Google “kept a pretty low profile” during the 2017 debates on Net Neutrality but did say the current rules were “working well” and that it was “disappointed” by the proposal.<br /> **Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in 2007: “The internet has created this remarkable set of free markets, open competition, competitive growth, and we need to keep it free and open. It’s actually important! If it goes the other way, we’ve got a serious problem.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9uy1o6-azI&amp;t=133s&amp;ab_channel=Google&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Despite their pledge to support an open &amp; equitable internet, Big Tech engaged in some of the most anti-competitive practices possible. <br /> ** Amazon dominates the e-market space, giving them immense insight on consumer trends, which it uses to rip off its third-party sellers' products.<br /> **Amazon’s colossal growth gave it outsized power in the online marketplace. 89% of consumers were more likely to buy products from Amazon than other e-commerce sites. The Wall Street Journal noted that as Amazon grew, “so ha[d] its capacity to take on an ever-growing array of competitors.” Forbes further noted that for third-party sellers, “competing directly with Amazon for shopper attention [was] an uphill battle.” Amazon did in fact “exercise total power over the third-party sellers on its platform” Forbes noted. Not only did they exercise their power on their platform, they also barred sellers from using FedEx ground for Prime deliveries. If sellers wanted to use FedEx, they’d have to pay for its more expensive Express Service.<br /> ** Amazon used data gathered on its platform about independent sellers to determine high selling products they could copy, produce and sell through their private label. Amazon was found to be using data about independent sellers on its platform to develop competing products. Using seller data was a common practice at Amazon and discussed openly in meetings. The information from sellers helped Amazon decide how much to price an item, which features of the product to copy or whether to enter a product segment based on its earning potential. Amazon’s drive to swallow competitors led them to produce their own versions of small products like camera tripods and hip shoes. The Wall Street Journal said “no competitor is too small to draw Amazon’s sights.” In fact, Amazon cloned a line of camera tripods created by a small company. The vendor’s sales became a fraction of their original size after Amazon introduced their version of the product. Amazon also ripped off a popular shore made with natural and recycled materials, but they themselves did not use environmentally friendly materials for their shoes and sold them for half the price. More than half of 1,000 third party sellers said Amazon sold its own product that directly competed with theirs. Amazon’s response to their anti-competitive practices was essentially ‘that’s just business.’ The company said ripping off popular products was “a common practice across the retail industry.”<br /> * Apple’s reign over their App Store allowed them to place their own apps at the top of search results.<br /> ** The Wall Street Journal found that Apple’s mobile apps routinely appeared first in search results ahead of competitors in its App Store. The Washington Post noted that Apple had a monopoly on how consumers accessed apps on the iPhone. Apple’s App Store had “helped fuel Apple’s remarkable growth” according to the New York Times.<br /> ** Apple abused its control over the App Store by downgrading popular apps when they came out with a competing product. After its release, Apple placed its own Apple Books app above the #1 ranked audiobook app, Audiobooks.com. The downgrade in search results led to a 25% decline in Audiobooks.com’s daily app download rate. Worse, Apple even removed apps from the App Store when they directly competed with one of their products. After introducing a screen time feature on the iPhone, Apple began removing similar apps that were widely popular among users, claiming those apps violated App Store rules. The company removed or restricted 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental control apps after they released their own screen time tracker. One of the most popular parental-control apps saw their business plummet after Apple forced changes to its app that made it less useful than Apples.<br /> * Facebook engaged in far-reaching anti-competitive practices to ensure their dominance would not be diminished.<br /> ** Facebook acquired an app that allowed it to detect early competitive threats and acquire, copy or bury them in response. In 2013, Facebook bought an apple called Onavo, which allowed the platform to detect early competitive threats. Onavo helped inform and influence Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp for $22 billion in 2014. The platform used the app to identify WhatsApp as their biggest competitor. Onavo showed that WhatsApp was sending more than twice as many messages per day as Facebook’s messenger app. The UK Parliament said Facebook used Onavo to conduct global surveys on the usage of mobile apps by consumers as well as the usage of mobile apps by customers. The FTC alleged that Facebook bought Instagram because it was an “existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.”<br /> ** The FTC said Facebook had engaged in illegal buy or bury schemes to “maintain its dominance” which “suppressed innovation.” The FTC alleged that Facebook engaged in illegal buy-or-bury schemes “to main its dominance.” They added that Facebook’s actions had “suppressed innovation and product quality improvements.” The FTC believed Facebook had “severely hamper[ed] the ability of rivals and would-be rivals to compete on merit.<br /> ** Facebook would threaten to cut off third-party software developers from plugging into their platform if those third parties made competing products. When Twitter released the video feature Vine, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook. When Facebook approached Snapchat and Foursquare about an acquisition, Zuckerberg said they either had to let Facebook buy them or it would copy their products and make operating more difficult, which it did: Facebook later discouraged influencers from referencing Snapchat on their Instagram accounts, saying those who did reference Snapchat risked losing their “verified” status.<br /> * Google used its mammoth reach in the smartphone and search space to ensure their products were the default apps and search engine on devices<br /> ** Google was sued by the Department of Justice for incentivizing Apple and Verizon to use their search engine instead of other search engines. The Department of Justice took issue with Google’s agreement with Apple to feature Google as the preselected search engine on iPhones and other devices.<br /> ** Google required phone manufacturers using Android’s OS to exclusively pre-install Google’s apps and not competitors apps. Google would not give phone makers the Google Play App Store if they did not pre-install Google Search, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. In 2018, The European Commission fined Google $5 billion for their practice of requiring phone makers to install their apps.<br /> ** Google buried its comparison-shopping competitors in search results, at times placing them on the fourth results page. The European Commission fined Google $2.7 billion for burying its competitors in search results.<br /> ** Google partnered with Facebook on ad buying after Facebook floated moving into the ad space, giving Facebook a sweetheart deal, including double the time to bid on ads. After Facebook announced that it was testing a move into the ad space, Google offered Facebook a sweetheart deal to be an ad partner with them instead. During ad auctions, Google gave Facebook 300 milliseconds to bid for ads whereas other partner companies had just 160 milliseconds or less to bid. Google did not give other ad partners the same generous terms that Facebook received. The New York Times observed that the disclosure of Google’s sweetheart deal with Facebook to partner on ads had “renewed concerns about how the biggest technology companies band together to close off competition.”</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Further_Concerns&diff=379 2022-03-18T02:25:53Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Lawmakers, regulators and even bank lobby groups like the Consumer Bankers Association have expressed concerns that due to Big Tech’s foray into financial services, a growing share of banking activity has occurred outside the purview of regulators, putting consumers and the resiliency of the financial system at risk.<br /> * Regulators worried Big Tech was too big to fail and could cause the next financial collapse. <br /> *Companies like Amazon and Google host most banking activity on their cloud networks and regulators fear a glitch at even one cloud company could bring down key services across multiple banks and countries, leaving customers unable to make payments or access services, and undermine confidence in the financial system.<br /> * According to CNBC, if Big Tech were to actually follow through with launching checking accounts, as Google and Amazon have both at one point announced they would do, it would be smaller, regional banks that would end up taking a hit. That is because fintech companies like Chime and SoFi tend to partner with smaller, regional banks, while Big Tech so far has partnered with Big Banks in their financial services offerings.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/apples-move-into-banking-raises-the-bar-for-fintech-credit-cards.html&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Consumer_Financial_Bureau_Regulation&diff=378 2022-03-18T02:24:58Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* In October 2021, CFPB issued an order to Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon to compel them to turn over information on their payments systems.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/regulator-seeks-transparency-for-payment-systems-of-big-tech&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The CFPB raised antitrust concerns with Big Tech’s dive into payments and wanted to make sure the companies didn’t “squelch” smaller competitors.<br /> * CFPB Director Rohit Chopra worried the US could become like China, where consumers have lost the ability to choose which payments app they use because Tech Giants AliPay and WeChat have established dominate payments networks and denied access to companies that might provide better or cheaper services.&lt;ref&gt;https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/cfpb-to-probe-apple-amazon-facebook-financial-data-practices&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Chopra also worried that Big Tech would use their payments apps how Apple allegedly uses its App Store, charging higher commissions and fees to apps that try to compete with one of Apple’s apps.<br /> * CFPB also asked Big Tech companies to provide information on how they share payments data with their subsidiaries and outside data brokers.<br /> * Chopra worried Big Tech companies could engage in invasive financial surveillance and combine the data they collect on consumers with geolocation and browsing data.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Apple_Card_and_Apple_Pay&diff=377 2022-03-18T02:23:57Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* In 2019, Apple Card, a partnership with Goldman Sachs, was accused of discriminating against women, with customers complaining on Twitter that women were granted lower credit limits than men, including married couples with only joint bank accounts.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/11/apple-card-algorithm-sparks-gender-bias-allegations-against-goldman-sachs/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A NY Department of Financial Services investigation concluded in March 2021 and found that Apple Card did not intentionally discriminate against women.<br /> * While Apple Pay, according to the Financial Times, has “attracted little attention” from US antitrust regulators, it has faced antitrust probes across the globe.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ft.com/content/13da1d7e-d771-40b1-a597-e37ab7112d46&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * According to the Financial Times, Apple Pay’s wallet comes pre-installed and cannot be deleted and “apple goes to great lengths to encourage its use.”<br /> * Apple Pay has faced antitrust probes by regulators the EU and the Netherlands.<br /> * The EU and Dutch investigations are probing whether Apple essentially requires merchant apps and websites running on Apple devices to use Apple Pay.<br /> * For example, on Apple. Devices, Apple Pay is the only mobile payment solution that can use NFC technology that allows for contactless payments in stores.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Amazon&diff=376 2022-03-18T02:22:20Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* In 2018, Amazon was reportedly in talks with US banking institutions to build a checking-account product to &quot;appeal to younger customers and those without bank accounts.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-you-ready-for-an-amazon-branded-checking-account-1520251200&lt;/ref&gt; By approaching existing banks to partner, Amazon &quot;appeared to be working to avoid becoming a bank itself, with all of the associated regulations.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.theinformation.com/articles/amazon-quietly-scrapped-checking-account-plans&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *According to CNBC, the company’s plan to brand the accounts under the names of partner banks showed their key motivation was customer data and being able to see what consumers spend their money on in order to get a leg up on Amazon in the online search battle.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/big-tech-will-push-into-finance-in-2020-while-avoiding-bank-regulation.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The checking accounts were never actually launched and were scrapped in October 2021 after several missed deadlines.<br /> * In July 2016, Amazon joined Wells Fargo to offer private student loans to prime members, offering a 0.5% interest rate discount.&lt;ref&gt;https://consumerist.com/2016/07/21/amazon-wells-fargo-hope-that-a-partnership-and-discounts-will-entice-you-into-a-private-student-loan/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The company was quickly assailed by consumer advocates for touting private loans over more affordable options with better protections.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.yahoo.com/news/amazon-no-longer-marketing-private-student-loans-prime-215049318.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The fine print for the program also said Wells Fargo could end the discount at any time.<br /> * The Consumers Union criticized Amazon for misleading students and trying to nudge them into signing up for riskier loans.<br /> * The Institute for College Access &amp; Success blasted the company for trumpeting the discount while burying the sky-high rates of the loans.<br /> ** Exec VP Of The Institute for College Access &amp; Success: “This is the kind of misleading private loan marketing that was rampant before the financial crisis.”<br /> <br /> * Amazon was also criticized for working with Wells Fargo, which had just settled charges brought by the CFPB that it had misled borrowers and illegally charged fees.<br /> * The student loan partnership was shuttered six weeks after launching, with Amazon refusing to explain why the program had ended.</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Hacks_and_Vulnerabilities_as_a_Security_Threat&diff=375 2022-03-18T02:10:54Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* A hack at one of the big tech companies could “derail everyday life” or “even compromise public safety, in fundamental ways.” As AI increasingly matures, hacking is expected to get easier, stealthier and more widespread. It is estimated that hackers will increase their use of AI and automation in the years ahead and use AI to create intelligent malware programs and execute stealth attacks. More concerning, the proliferation of AI is thought to lead to an increase in the number of things that could be hacked.<br /> * Facebook exemplified how Big Tech emphasized company profit over cyber security. In 2019, Facebook spent $3.6 billion on safety and security on its platform, but just two years later announced plans to spend $10 billion on its Facebook Reality Labs project for the development of AR and VR products.<br /> * China was an early player in the hacking scene, breaking into the systems of Google and Yahoo as early as 2009. As early as 2009, China was able to hack into the systems of nearly 3 dozen companies, including Google, Yahoo and Northrop Grumman. At the time, China’s hack was described as one of the most extensive and far reaching campaigns of cyber espionage in U.S. history. China hacking of Google gave them access to private Gmail accounts. China used that access to snoop on Chinese human rights activists. Between 2011-2018, China accounted for more than 90% of the DOJ’s cases on economic espionage.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Russia was behind the 2020 SolarWinds hack that penetrated 9 federal agencies, nearly 100 private companies and went undetected for months. Russia’s 2020 SolarWinds hack was described as “one of the most sophisticated and largest attacks in the past 5 years. The SolarWinds hack was thought to have infected the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which helped determine policy for internet-related issues, including setting standards and blocking imports and export of technology that was considered a national security risk. The SolarWinds hack had been underway for months before it was detected.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-us-government-treasury-commerce.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * North Korea was behind the WannaCry malware hacks that hit 300,000 computers in 150 nations. North Korea’s WannaCry attack resulted in billions of dollars of damage. The hack affected hospitals, businesses and banks across the world. North Korea also hacked Sony after they produced a movie satirizing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42407488&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Syria nearly crashed the U.S. stock market after they hacked the Twitter account of the Associated Press and claimed President Obama had been hurt in an explosion at the White House. A group called the Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility for the Associated Press Hack.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-national-security-case-for-fixing-social-media&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Jeff Bezos’ phone was hacked through his WhatsApp app. The New York Times noted how the hack exposed the “vulnerabilities” of popular messaging apps “that attackers [could] exploit.” Facebook’s top policy official, Nick Clegg, “seemed to struggle when defending” WhatsApp after the Bezos hack. Clegg stammered through his response: “It sounds like something on the, you know, what they call the operating, the operating, the phone itself. It can't have been, it can't have been anything on the, when the message was sent in transit, because that's end-to-end encrypted on WhatsApp.”&lt;ref&gt;https://mashable.com/article/amazon-jeff-bezos-phone-hacked-dick-pics-saudi-crown-prince-mbs&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2018, a California man was able to break into people’s iCloud accounts and steal 620,000+ pictures, including nude photos of girls. The 40-year-old California man impersonated an Apple customer support technician in a socially engineered email campaign.&lt;ref&gt;https://threatpost.com/man-hacked-icloud/168923/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * In 2014, a 36-year-old Pennsylvania man phished more than 100 celebrities to gain access to their iCloud accounts and stole their nude photos. Celebrities affected by the hack included major stars like Rihanna and Jennifer Lawrence.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-35820521&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech%27s_lobbying_vs_other_Toxic_Industries&diff=374 2022-03-18T02:05:49Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Since 2000, the four largest Big Tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Alphabet/Google, and Facebook/Meta – have spent $465,026,307 on federal lobbying.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&amp;id=D000023883&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&amp;id=D000033563&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2015&amp;id=D000067823&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&amp;id=D000021754&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** $434,474,221 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> * Additionally, nine groups that the four Big Tech companies fund have spent $98,061,827 on federal lobbying since 2000.<br /> ** $80,400,019 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> * Big Tech’s federal lobbying total eclipses that of other major toxic industries:<br /> ** Since 2010, the nation’s largest opioid manufacturers have spent $282,292,834 on federal lobbying.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000000383&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000000383&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000000386&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000029389&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** From 1996 to 1999, the nation’s largest tobacco companies spent $155,750,398 on federal lobbying, or $261,306,596 in 2021 dollars.&lt;ref&gt;http://web.archive.org/web/20000816183424/https:/www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tobacco/burning.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech_and_National_Security&diff=373 2022-03-18T02:05:25Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Multiple scholars and institutions have noted the risk Big Tech posed to America’s national security.<br /> * Columbia University said the size and dominance of American tech companies were “part of the problem” when it came to the implications of their products on national security. The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace said Big Tech companies had “taken many actions that contravene[d] U.S. interests, then relied on their clout to avoid accountability.” Stratfor remarked that Big Tech was “no more immune to potential espionage and foreign influence” than any business with vast international ties.&lt;ref&gt;https://knightcolumbia.org/content/the-national-security-case-for-breaking-up-big-tech&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/22/antitrust-threat-to-national-security-pub-80404&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/google-ai-work-china-stirs-questions-allegiance-national-security-military-technology-peter-thiel&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Military leaders warned if tech advancements were obtained by adversaries, they could “challenge the U.S. in all warfare domains.” Dan Coats, Former Director of National Intelligence of the United States, has said new technologies could allow adversaries to “more readily develop weapons systems that [could] strike farther, faster” and challenge the United States in all warfare domains. Bob Scher, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy worried private produced technology would not “have the same levels of security” as research done by the government specifically designed to support the military. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace felt Big Tech had “contravened U.S. interest on China.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/AI%20NatSec%20-%20final.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/03/04/tech-policy-is-a-matter-of-national-security/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Tech’s advancements were being harnessed by terrorist groups in “increasingly sophisticated” ways. The United Nations said recent history displayed examples of “the increasingly sophisticated use of diverse technologies by terrorist and violent extremist groups. Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen told lawmakers she believed Facebook had become a “national security issue” and claimed that Facebook knew its platform harmed U.S. security interests.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/sites/www.un.org.counterterrorism/files/malicious-use-of-ai-uncct-unicri-report-hd.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Big Tech has not only risked national security, but also national well-being and personal agency. The New Yorker wrote we have “entered a world in which our national well-being depends on not just the government but also on the private companies through which we lead our digital lives.&quot; Columbia University said big data and AI enabled governments and big tech companies to not only predict but also shape what individuals would do. Media outlet The Diplomat believed we had rapidly entered “a world where the security architecture of everyday life” was built “by an impromptu collection of corporations with occasional and inconsistent oversight.&quot; WIRED exclaimed that in the digital era, “power [came] from controlling data, making sense of it, and using it to influence how people behave.” Tech Crunch said data was to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th.<br /> *Retired Army General Wesley Clark, who served as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000, told a panel of experts that &quot;when a firm gets to a certain scale, it’s so big that it sees itself as beyond American,&quot; and that massive tech firms often make compromises to operate in places like China.&lt;ref&gt;https://twitter.com/openmarkets/status/1493644541521498113&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Tech%27s_lobbying_vs_other_Toxic_Industries&diff=372 2022-03-18T01:57:15Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* Since 2000, the four largest Big Tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Alphabet/Google, and Facebook/Meta – have spent $465,026,307 on federal lobbying.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&amp;id=D000023883&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&amp;id=D000033563&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2015&amp;id=D000067823&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&amp;id=D000021754&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** $434,474,221 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> * Additionally, nine groups that the four Big Tech companies fund have spent $98,061,827 on federal lobbying since 2000.<br /> ** $80,400,019 of that total has come since 2010.<br /> * Big Tech’s federal lobbying total eclipses that of other major toxic industries:<br /> ** Since 2010, the nation’s largest opioid manufacturers have spent $282,292,834 on federal lobbying.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000000383&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000000383&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000000386&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=D000029389&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** America’s seven largest banks in the leadup to the financial crisis spent $194,193,858 on federal lobbying from 2000 to 2010.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&amp;q=https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary%3Fcycle%3D2010%26id%3Dd000000071&amp;ust=1647014820000000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0rpXKW1Y2mZXnqyZVWMAYQ&amp;hl=en&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2010&amp;id=d000000090&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&amp;q=https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary%3Fcycle%3D2000%26id%3DD000000103&amp;ust=1647015180000000&amp;usg=AOvVaw25vA4C4qDRIpfFzJK4GLQP&amp;hl=en&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2000&amp;id=D000021891&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** From 1996 to 1999, the nation’s largest tobacco companies spent $155,750,398 on federal lobbying, or $261,306,596 in 2021 dollars.&lt;ref&gt;http://web.archive.org/web/20000816183424/https:/www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tobacco/burning.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Progressive_Policy_Institute_(PPI)&diff=371 2022-03-18T01:56:33Z

<p>Btw admin: </p> <hr /> <div>* PPI was funded in part by Facebook, Google, and Amazon. The Washington Examiner noted that Big Tech’s contributions to organizations like PPI were “to defend themselves from public scrutiny and regulation.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.protocol.com/critics-say-what-house-democrats-got-wrong-big-tech&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Three of PPI’s board members, Bernard McKay, Bill Budinger, and Chris Kelly, were closely aligned with Big Tech. Bernard Kelly was a board member for the [[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]] as well as a board member at the [[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)|Information Technology &amp; Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]. Board member Bill Budinger founded a major microchip company named Rodel, which built semiconductors and silicon wafers. Board member Chris Kelly was previously Facebook’s Chief Privacy Officer and the platform’s first General Council. Kelly opposed breaking up Big Tech.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.progressivepolicy.org/pressrelease/ppis-third-way-foundation-adds-three-new-members-to-the-institutes-board-of-directors/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI’s Tech Policy Analyst was previously a policy analyst for [[NetChoice]]. PPI’s Malena Dailey worked at NetChoice before moving to PPI. Her focus at NetChoice was on state and federal legislation impacting Big Tech as well as policies related to antitrust and content moderation.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.progressivepolicy.org/people/malena-dailey/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI had partnered with [[TechNet]] on a research report, commissioned polls on Big Tech in battleground districts and produced research used by fellow pro-Big Tech groups. PPI partnered with TechNet on a study that highlighted 25 up-and-coming tech hubs across the country. The study highlights public policies that created the conditions for tech startups to succeed in growing numbers and more places. PPI commissioned a poll to survey voters in battleground districts on whether they believed Big Tech companies were monopolies with too much power and asked how Congress should respond. NetChoice once used a paper from PPI to defend Google after the platform faced antitrust actions that targeted their ad practices.&lt;ref&gt;''The Hill'', &quot;Linda Moore Op-Ed,&quot; 10/18/17.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI’s Director of Technology Policy had been a panelist at conferences put on by Big Tech. PPI’s Alex Slapp, Director of Technology Policy, was a panelist at a conference put together by NetChoice that focused on antitrust regulation, whether Big Tech had monopolized their industries and how to “define digital markets.” Slapp was also a panelist at a conference put together by [[ACT - The App Association|The App Association]] (sponsored by Apple), which focused on antitrust and competition policies in the app economy.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.wsj.com/articles/draft-antitrust-bills-would-restrict-online-platforms-11623269646&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI represented Big Tech in Congress, both in public forums and in private briefings. After Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook refused to attend a Congressional hearing on an antitrust bill, PPI asked if they could send a representative.&lt;ref&gt;https://maplightarchive.org/story/facebook-google-and-amazon-pour-money-into-policy-shops-as-breakup-debates-rage/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI praised Big Tech for their contributions to society. PPI released research touting the fact that “most Americans live[d] in states where the tech e-commerce ecosystem [paid] better than manufacturing. PPI claimed Big Tech was “building a new middle class” and believed “information technology had delivered more and unprecedented convenience for consumers, and good paying jobs.”&lt;ref&gt;https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/how-tech-is-building-a-new-middle-class/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI has spotlighted Amazon for being the #1 investor in America two years in a row. PPI ranked Amazon the #1 investor in America in 2020 and 2021. PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist, Michael Mandel, said that Amazon was “leading the way for what corporate investment in America should look like.” He also believed that Amazon was “setting a new national standard for what the wage should be for high school educated workers” which would “force a lot of companies to decide if they want[ed] to invest in their workers.”&lt;ref&gt;https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-ranked-no-1-investor-america&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI attacked antitrust laws targeting Big Tech through press releases, blog posts and other research materials. PPI published a blog that criticized Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up Big Tech companies. PPI said “Warren’s call to break up America’s tech leaders may go down well with her party’s ‘Democratic Socialist’ faction. PPI also released an e-book that urged against the passage of antitrust laws for Big Tech. PPI argued that antitrust bills targeting Big Tech had “divestiture and draconian regulation.”&lt;ref&gt;https://maplightarchive.org/story/facebook-google-and-amazon-pour-money-into-policy-shops-as-breakup-debates-rage/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * PPI would single out specific pieces of legislation or committee reports to attack on behalf of Big Tech. PPI attacked the House Judiciary Committee’s tech antitrust report, saying it was “400-plus pages of weak evidence that Big Tech companies actually harm[ed] consumers and reduce[d] innovation in digital markets.” They believed regulation on app stores had a “highly prescriptive view” of what tech platforms “should allow.” PPI opposed the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’, claiming if it passed consumers would be “worse off.”  PPI released research that claimed proved how the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’ “could do irreparable harm” to tech services used and relied on by millions of Americans. They believed the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’ would “result in a huge financial hit” to big tech companies that would lead them to reduce or alter popular services.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/understanding-the-negative-impact-of-the-klobuchar-grassley-bill-on-tech-services/&lt;/ref&gt;</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=370 2022-03-18T01:53:23Z

<p>Btw admin: /* Big Tech Wiki Page */</p> <hr /> <div>== Big Tech Wiki Page ==<br /> * Big Tech<br /> **Big Tech, Lobbying, and Proxy Organizations Funded By Big Tech<br /> ***Trade/Proxy Organizations funded by Big Tech<br /> ****[[TechNet]]<br /> ****[[ACT - The App Association]]<br /> ****[[Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)]]<br /> ****[[NetChoice]]<br /> ****[[Consumer Technology Association (CTA)]]<br /> ****[[Developers Alliance]]<br /> ****[[Internet Association]]<br /> ****[[Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)]]<br /> ****[[New York Coalition for Independent Work]]<br /> ****[[American Edge]]<br /> ****[[Download Fairness Coalition]]<br /> ****[[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]]<br /> ****[[Chamber of Progress]]<br /> ****[[Connected Commerce Council]]<br /> ****[[Financial Innovation Now (FIN)]]<br /> ***Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research<br /> ****[[Global Antitrust Institute]]<br /> ****[[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]<br /> ****[[Links to Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC]]<br /> ****[[Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech's lobbying vs other Toxic Industries]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech Influence Maps]]<br /> <br /> *[[Big Tech and National Security]]<br /> **[[Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Adversaries]]<br /> **[[Disinformation and Big Tech as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Hacks and Vulnerabilities as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Possible Solutions]]<br /> *Big Tech and Financial Services<br /> **[[Big Tech entering Financial Services]]<br /> ***[[Google Pay]]<br /> ***[[Amazon]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Libra/Crypto]]<br /> ***[[Apple Card and Apple Pay]]<br /> ***[[Consumer Financial Bureau Regulation|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation]]<br /> ***[[Further Concerns]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Regulation]]<br /> **[[Small Business Support of Regulation]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Climate]]<br /> *Big Tech and Social Justice<br /> **[[Lack of Latinos in Big Tech]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Spanish Language Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Anti-Vax Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech Lying to Congress]]<br /> **[[Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Algorithmic Bias]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *Amazon<br /> **[[Amazon and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Amazon and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Workers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Taxes]]<br /> **[[Amazon and National Security]]<br /> *Apple<br /> **[[Apple and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Apple and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Apple and Privacy]]<br /> **[[Apple and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Apple and Workers]]<br /> **[[Apple and China]]<br /> **[[Apple and Taxes]]<br /> *Facebook<br /> **Facebook and Consumers<br /> ***[[Facebook Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Is Building Another Monopoly In &quot;The Metaverse&quot;]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Facing Pressure from Consumers, Regulators]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Cryptocurrency Not Trusted by Lawmakers]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Facebook's Oversight Board]]<br /> **Facebook and Dissent<br /> ***[[Facebook and Whistleblowers]]<br /> ***[[NYU Study on Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook's False Claim To Supporting Regulation]]<br /> **Facebook and User Harm<br /> ***[[Allowing Illegal Actions for Ads]]<br /> ***[[Failures to Keep Children Safe]]<br /> ***[[Facebook and Mental Health]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Taxes]]<br /> *Google<br /> **[[Google and Consumers]]<br /> ***[[Google Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> **[[Google and Small Businesses]]<br /> **[[Google and Koch Connections]]<br /> **[[Google Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Google and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Google and National Security]]<br /> **[[Google and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *</div>

Btw admin https://www.bigtechwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=369 2022-03-18T01:52:56Z

<p>Btw admin: /* Big Tech Wiki Page */</p> <hr /> <div>== Big Tech Wiki Page ==<br /> * Big Tech<br /> **Big Tech, Lobbying, and Proxy Organizations Funded By Big Tech<br /> ***Trade/Proxy Organizations funded by Big Tech<br /> ****[[TechNet]]<br /> ****[[ACT - The App Association|ACT - the App Association]]<br /> ****[[Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)]]<br /> ****[[NetChoice]]<br /> ****[[Consumer Technology Association (CTA)]]<br /> ****[[Developers Alliance]]<br /> ****[[Internet Association]]<br /> ****[[Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA)]]<br /> ****[[New York Coalition for Independent Work]]<br /> ****[[American Edge]]<br /> ****[[Download Fairness Coalition]]<br /> ****[[Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA)]]<br /> ****[[Chamber of Progress]]<br /> ****[[Connected Commerce Council]]<br /> ****[[Financial Innovation Now (FIN)]]<br /> ***Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research<br /> ****[[Global Antitrust Institute]]<br /> ****[[Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)]]<br /> ****[[Links to Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC]]<br /> ****[[Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech's lobbying vs other Toxic Industries]]<br /> ***[[Big Tech Influence Maps]]<br /> <br /> *[[Big Tech and National Security]]<br /> **[[Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Adversaries]]<br /> **[[Disinformation and Big Tech as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Hacks and Vulnerabilities as a Security Threat]]<br /> **[[Possible Solutions]]<br /> *Big Tech and Financial Services<br /> **[[Big Tech entering Financial Services]]<br /> ***[[Google Pay]]<br /> ***[[Amazon]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Libra/Crypto]]<br /> ***[[Apple Card and Apple Pay]]<br /> ***[[Consumer Financial Bureau Regulation|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation]]<br /> ***[[Further Concerns]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Regulation]]<br /> **[[Small Business Support of Regulation]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Climate]]<br /> *Big Tech and Social Justice<br /> **[[Lack of Latinos in Big Tech]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Spanish Language Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Anti-Vax Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Big Tech Lying to Congress]]<br /> **[[Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco]]<br /> **[[Big Tech and Algorithmic Bias]]<br /> *[[Big Tech and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *Amazon<br /> **[[Amazon and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Amazon and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Workers]]<br /> **[[Amazon and Taxes]]<br /> **[[Amazon and National Security]]<br /> *Apple<br /> **[[Apple and Consumers]]<br /> **[[Apple and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Apple and Privacy]]<br /> **[[Apple and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Apple and Workers]]<br /> **[[Apple and China]]<br /> **[[Apple and Taxes]]<br /> *Facebook<br /> **Facebook and Consumers<br /> ***[[Facebook Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Is Building Another Monopoly In &quot;The Metaverse&quot;]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Facing Pressure from Consumers, Regulators]]<br /> ***[[Facebook Cryptocurrency Not Trusted by Lawmakers]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Small Business]]<br /> **[[Facebook's Oversight Board]]<br /> **Facebook and Dissent<br /> ***[[Facebook and Whistleblowers]]<br /> ***[[NYU Study on Misinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook's False Claim To Supporting Regulation]]<br /> **Facebook and User Harm<br /> ***[[Allowing Illegal Actions for Ads]]<br /> ***[[Failures to Keep Children Safe]]<br /> ***[[Facebook and Mental Health]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Facebook and Taxes]]<br /> *Google<br /> **[[Google and Consumers]]<br /> ***[[Google Operating as a Monopoly]]<br /> **[[Google and Small Businesses]]<br /> **[[Google and Koch Connections]]<br /> **[[Google Disinformation]]<br /> **[[Google and the Auto Industry]]<br /> **[[Google and National Security]]<br /> **[[Google and Taxes]]<br /> <br /> *</div>

Btw admin