WASHINGTON: Pressure is rising on Big Tech firms, signaling tougher regulation in Washington and elsewhere that could lead to the breakup of the largest platforms. But you’d hardly know by looking at their share prices.
Shares in Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google parent Alphabet have hovered near record highs in recent weeks, lifted by pandemic-fueled surges in sales and profits that have helped the big firms extend their dominance of key economic sectors.
The Biden administration has given signs of more aggressive regulation with appointments of Big Tech critics at the Federal Trade Commission.
But that has failed to dent the momentum of the largest tech firms, despite tough talk and antitrust litigation in the United States and Europe, with US lawmakers eyeing moves to make antitrust enforcement easier.
Big Tech critics in the United States and the EU want Apple and Google to loosen the grip of their online app marketplaces; more competition in a digital advertising market dominated by Google and Facebook; and better access to Amazon’s e-commerce platform by third-party sellers.
One lawsuit tossed out by a judge but in the process of being refiled could force Facebook to spin off its Instagram and WhatsApp platforms, and some activists and lawmakers are pressing for breakups of the four tech giants.
All four have hit market valuations above $1 trillion, with Apple over $2 trillion. Alphabet shares are up some 80 percent from a year ago, with Facebook up nearly 40 percent and Apple almost 30 percent. Amazon shares are roughly on par with last year’s level after breaking records in July.
Microsoft, with a $2 trillion valuation, has largely escaped antitrust scrutiny, even as it has benefitted from the cloud computing trend.
The surging growth has stoked complaints that the strongest firms are extending their dominance and squeezing out rivals.
Yet analysts say any aggressive actions, in the legal or legislative arena, could take years to play out and face challenges.
“Breakup is going to be nearly impossible,” said analyst Daniel Newman at Futurum Research, citing the need for controversial legislative changes to antitrust laws.
Newman said a more likely outcome would be multibillion-dollar fines that the companies could easily absorb as they adjust their business models to adapt to problematic issues in a fast-moving environment.
“These companies have more resources and know-how than the regulators,” he said.
Dan Ives at Wedbush Securities said any antitrust action would likely require legislative change — unlikely with a divided Congress.
“Until investors start to see some consensus on where the regulatory and law changes go from an antitrust perspective, it’s a contained risk, and they see a green light to buy tech,” he said.
Other factors supporting Big Tech include a massive shift to cloud computing and online activities that allow the strongest players to benefit, and a crackdown in China on its large technology firms.
“The China regulatory crackdown has been so massive in scale and scope, it has driven investors from Chinese tech to US tech,” Ives said.
“Even though there is regulatory risk in the US, it pales in comparison to the crackdown we’re seeing from Beijing.”
Analysts say the big tech firms are also well-positioned to deal with tougher regulations.
Tracy Li of the investment firm Capital Group, in a recent blog post that the tech giants face major risks in regulation around privacy, content moderation and antitrust.
“Concerns related to privacy or content may actually strengthen, rather than weaken, the moats of the largest platforms,” Li said.
“These companies often boast well-established protocols and have more resources to tackle privacy and legal matters.”
Other analysts point to the swift movement by tech firms to adapt their business models in contrast to the slow efforts to regulate.
Facebook, for example, is adapting to changing conditions by moving into the “Metaverse” of virtual and augmented reality experiences, noted Ali Mogharabi at Morningstar.
Mogharabi said Facebook’s vast data collected from its 2.5 billion users gives it the ability to withstand a regulatory onslaught.
“Antitrust enforcement and further regulations pose a threat to Facebook’s intangible assets, data,” the analyst said in a July 29 note.
“However, increased restrictions on data access and usage would apply to all firms, not just Facebook.”
Independent analyst Eric Seufert said in a tweet that “regulatory changes will have a significant impact on Facebook’s business, but the sheer scale of Facebook and the growth trajectory of digital advertising ameliorate that. Facebook’s gold mine is far from depleted.”
Newman said the large tech firms have expanded during the pandemic by delivering innovative services, extending a trend that has seen the strong get stronger.
“These platforms have created better experiences for consumers, but it is extremely difficult for new entrants,” he said.
For investors, Newman added, “that means no one is creating revenue and profit growth faster.”
Big Tech rolls on as investors shrug off regulatory pressure
https://arab.news/gmwxq
Big Tech rolls on as investors shrug off regulatory pressure
- Shares in Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google parent Alphabet have hovered near record highs in recent weeks
- Big Tech critics in the United States and the EU want Apple and Google to loosen the grip of their online app marketplaces
Media watchdogs condemn ‘concerning’ Haaretz boycott by Israeli government
- Committee to Protect Journalists says tactic is ‘disturbing evidence’ of efforts to prevent coverage of Gaza war
- Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken critical of Israeli policies, prompting government call for restrictions on left-leaning paper
LONDON: Media watchdogs have strongly criticized the Israeli government’s decision to boycott Haaretz, one of the country’s oldest and most critical newspapers, calling it a troubling blow to media freedom and pluralism.
“We are extremely concerned over Israel’s authoritarian drift that undermines media pluralism and the public’s right to know,” said IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger, who called on “the government to review its decision and stop damaging press freedom in the country by boycotting a newspaper.”
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, labeled the boycott “deplorable” and accused Israel of intensifying its restrictions on critical media. “Israel’s increasing deployment of restrictions on critical media is further disturbing evidence of its efforts to prevent coverage of its actions in Gaza,” she said.
The Israeli government unanimously approved a proposal on Nov. 24 by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi to halt all government advertising in and communication with Haaretz.
The decision effectively boycotts the left-leaning outlet, citing comments by publisher Amos Schocken, who had earlier called for sanctions against Israel and referred to Palestinian resistance groups as “freedom fighters.”
Schocken, who has led the paper for over three decades, later clarified that he did not include groups like Hamas in his reference to freedom fighters, emphasizing his support for nonviolent resistance.
Despite this, Haaretz faced significant backlash, publishing an editorial distancing itself from his remarks.
Karhi defended the government’s move, saying Israel “cannot fund a newspaper whose publisher calls for sanctions against the state and supports its enemies during wartime.”
He has previously accused Haaretz of propagating “anti-Israel propaganda” and called for financial penalties against the paper.
The boycott comes amid wider concerns over media freedom in Israel.
Critics point to the introduction of laws like the so-called “Al Jazeera law,” which allows temporary bans on foreign media deemed a national security risk, and ongoing attempts to privatize the public broadcaster Kan.
“Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who follows the hardline stances of the Likud party, is leveraging the ongoing war — the longest in the country’s history — to silence voices that criticise the far-right coalition in power,” said Paris-based media watchdog Reporter Without Borders.
The Paris-based watchdog added that such measures will have “lasting, detrimental effects on Israel’s media landscape.”
In response, Haaretz described the government’s actions as an attempt to “silence a critical, independent newspaper,” vowing to continue its reporting despite the restrictions.
Israeli ministers advance bill to privatize Kan, shutting down country’s last public broadcaster
- Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi says public broadcast is ‘obsolete,’ no longer serves its original purpose of addressing Israel’s multiculturalism
- Critics argue bill ‘fundamentally alters Israeli media,’ could lead to punitive measures against media
LONDON: Israeli ministers have approved a controversial bill to privatize the country’s public broadcaster, the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (Kan) within two years, effectively eliminating Israel’s last remaining public media outlet.
The proposal, backed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Likud MK Tally Gotliv, received support from the Ministerial Committee on Legislation on Sunday.
If passed, the bill will require the government to issue a tender to sell the broadcaster’s television and radio networks. Should no private operator come forward, Kan will be shuttered and its archives and intellectual property rights transferred to the state.
The Attorney General’s Office has raised significant legal and practical concerns about the legislation, describing it as a direct threat to press freedom.
In a position paper sent to Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Deputy Attorney General Avital Sompolinsky and Adv. Meir Levin warned the proposal sent a “clear and serious” signal that critical reporting or content unfavorable to the government could lead to punitive measures against media outlets.
“The bill’s immediate significance is the full and total elimination of public broadcasting in Israel, fundamentally altering Israeli media,” they wrote. “Such a drastic decision cannot be made hastily through a private bill, without a solid expert foundation, and in contradiction to the government’s prior approach to this matter”.
Proponents of the bill argue that public broadcasting is outdated and has become “obsolete,” citing Kan’s “exceptionally large budget” and alleged low viewing figures.
They further argue that the move is necessary to “increase competition” in the media market, saying that the widespread availability of internet platforms and multi-channel television means public service media no longer serve their original purpose of addressing Israel’s multiculturalism.
Addressing the company’s employees, Kan CEO Golan Yochpaz rejected these claims, accusing the government of undermining press independence and manipulating statistics.
“They’re trying to confuse us with linear television viewing data, an outdated statistic that is irrelevant to public television, which does not need to sell advertising,” Yochpaz said, warning privatization would deprive millions of viewers of free access to events like the Eurovision Song Contest and World Cup.
The Journalists Union and Media Employees Union also condemned the proposal, calling it a “serious blow to press freedom” and a threat to the job security of Kan’s employees.
The unions warned that the bill undermined democracy by silencing critical voices and eroding journalistic independence.
The move comes amid heightened tensions over media freedom in Israel. Just hours earlier, the Knesset severed ties with Haaretz following comments by publisher Amos Schocken referring to Palestinian militants as “freedom fighters.”
The newspaper decried the decision, describing it as “another step in Netanyahu’s journey to dismantle Israeli democracy.”
UN says Taliban detained journalists over 250 times in Afghanistan since takeover
The United Nations’ mission to Afghanistan said on Tuesday the ruling Taliban had arbitrarily detained journalists 256 times since their takeover three years ago, and urged authorities there to protect the media.
In a reply accompanying the report, the Taliban-led foreign ministry denied having arrested that number of journalists and added that those arrested had committed a crime.
Journalists in Afghanistan worked under “challenging conditions,” the UN mission (UNAMA) and the UN Human Rights Office said in a statement.
“They often face unclear rules on what they can and cannot report, running the risk of intimidation and arbitrary detention for perceived criticism,” said Roza Otunbayeva, the special representative of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
“We urge the de facto authorities to ensure the safety and security of all journalists and media workers as they carry out their tasks, and to fully recognize the importance of women working in the media,” she added.
In its response, the ministry said women continued to work in the media, subject to certain conditions to meet religious morality rules, such as covering their faces and working separately from men.
It described the UN report as being “far from actual realities” and said security forces were working to protect journalists. The Afghan information ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The foreign ministry said the arrest figure was “exaggerated” and detentions took place subject to law.
“No one is arrested arbitrarily,” it said, listing the infringements of those detained.
These ranged from encouraging people to act against the system, defaming the government and providing false and baseless reports, to co-operation with the system’s enemies in the media, and providing material to media outlets against the system, it added.
The Taliban swept to power in 2021 as foreign forces withdrew, vowing to restore security and impose their strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Their administration has not been officially recognized by any foreign government and Western diplomats have said the path to recognition is being stalled by the Taliban’s curbs on women.
US-made weapon used by Israel in strike that killed journalists, investigation finds
- The Guardian probe reveals Boeing-made kit used to convert unguided bomb into precision-guided weapon, pointing to deliberate targeting
- Warning that targeting journalists based on assumed political affiliations is ‘dangerous trend,’ violation of international law
LONDON: A US-made weapon was used by Israel in an airstrike that killed three journalists and injured three others in southern Lebanon, according to an investigation by The Guardian published on Monday.
The British newspaper revealed that munitions manufactured in the US targeted cameraman Ghassan Najjar and technician Mohammad Reda from Iran-backed Hezbollah outlet Al-Mayadeen, as well as cameraman Wissam Qassem from the Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Manar channel. Experts have called the attack a potential war crime.
The strike, which was carried out on the night of Oct. 25, hit a chalet in Hasbaya that was being used as a press station by several media workers, including journalists from Al Jazeera, Sky News Arabia, and TRT.
The Israeli military claimed it targeted a “Hezbollah military structure” in which “terrorists were located,” but later said that the incident was under review after learning journalists were among the casualties.
Nadim Houry, a human rights lawyer and executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative, told The Guardian: “All the indications show that this would have been a deliberate targeting of journalists: a war crime.
“This was clearly delineated as a place where journalists were staying.”
The investigation found no evidence to support Israel’s claims. Cars marked with “Press” signs were parked outside the chalet, and no military activity was detected in the area before the strike.
Witnesses said Israeli drones constantly monitored the site during the 23 days it was used as a press hub.
Ahmed Baydoun, an Amsterdam-based open-source intelligence researcher who was among the first to geolocate the strike, told Arab News that while satellite imagery and eyewitness video analysis pinpointed the chalet’s exact coordinates, providing both “accuracy” and a “tangible grasp of the gravity of the situation” in Hasbaya, definitive conclusions about the incident “would require shrapnel or remnants of the ammunition from the site.”
Geolocated #Israel’s airstrike on the residence of Lebanese journalists in Hasbaya, Lebanon that happened at 4:21 AM. Coordinates: 33.407794, 35.673511. #Lebanon https://t.co/f9Pw8OkjSZ pic.twitter.com/CONQAbvr3P
— A. Baydoun (@weatherwar) October 25, 2024
Remnants of munitions at the scene indicated that at least one weapon used was a 500lb MK-80 series bomb equipped with a Boeing-made JDAM (joint direct attack munition) kit, which converts unguided bombs into precision-guided weapons. The use of such a bomb suggests the site was deliberately selected as a target.
Under US law, the use of American-made weapons in attacks that constitute crimes against humanity requires the suspension of arms supplies to the country in question. Both Israel and the US have denied such accusations.
The journalists killed in the strike were not members of Hezbollah, although one coffin was draped in a Hezbollah flag during burial.
Experts noted that such practices often signify political affiliation but do not indicate military or operational involvement.
Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict, said targeting journalists based on assumed political affiliations was “a dangerous trend already witnessed in Gaza” and “not compatible with international law.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that since the conflict began on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has killed six journalists in Lebanon and at least 129 in Gaza, marking the deadliest period for the profession in over four decades.
Irene Khan, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, accused Israeli authorities of “blatantly ignoring” their international legal obligations to safeguard journalists.
Israeli government sanctions Haaretz newspaper citing allegations of ‘anti-state’ incitement
- Move confirmed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi
LONDON: Israel’s government on Sunday announced plans to boycott the country’s leading left-leaning newspaper, Haaretz.
The move, confirmed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, follows a unanimous decision by Israeli ministers to order a halt to government advertising in its pages. Officials and employees of government-funded organizations are also prohibited from engaging with the publication.
“We will not allow a reality in which the publisher of an official newspaper in the State of Israel will call for the imposition of sanctions against it and will support the enemies of the state in the midst of a war and will be financed by it,” said a statement from Karhi’s office.
“We advocate a free press and freedom of expression, but also the freedom of the government to decide not to fund incitement against the state of Israel.”
Haaretz is known for its critical stance on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. It has recently drawn anger from the government for vocal support of a ceasefire to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas since Oct. 7 last year.
In response to Karhi’s decision, Haaretz issued a scathing statement accusing Netanyahu of undermining Israel’s democratic principles.
“Like his friends Putin, Erdogan and Orban, Netanyahu is trying to silence a critical, independent newspaper. Haaretz will not balk and will not morph into a government pamphlet that publishes messages approved by the government and its leader,” the statement read.
The government’s justification for the boycott centers on remarks by Amos Schocken, Haaretz’s publisher, during a recent conference in London. Schocken described the Israeli government as “imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population” and accused it of targeting “freedom fighters” among Palestinians, a statement he later clarified was not intended to refer to Hamas.
The boycott has drawn condemnation from international press freedom advocates, reported The Guardian.
The International Federation of Journalists said it was concerned the Israeli government’s actions represented a broader effort to restrict press freedom and public access to independent reporting.
In May, Israeli authorities shut down the local offices of Al Jazeera, citing national security concerns. The government’s decision to close the satellite news network was met with widespread criticism, with opponents calling it a “dark day for the media.”
As tensions between the government and independent media continue to rise, critics have argued the actions represent a troubling erosion of democratic values in Israel.
