Connect with us

Sci-Tech

Why Google Employees Aren’t Reacting to US Antitrust Trial

Published

on


On Tuesday, Google’s employees gathered for an all-hands meeting named T.G.I.F. These companywide meetings are rarely held on Fridays these days, but the name has stuck.

Executives shared highlights from a recent earnings report and cloud-computing conference, and warned workers against taking disruptive actions in the wake of internal protests against a cloud-computing contract with Israel.

But no one in the meeting, two employees said, broached a topic that could have a dramatic impact on Google: its landmark antitrust trial with the Justice Department, where arguments are finally coming to an end this week.

For eight months, while tech policy experts have tried to divine what a Google victory or loss would mean for the power of tech giants in the United States, Google’s employees have mostly ignored the antitrust fight, according to interviews with a dozen current and recent workers, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the legal matter.

Even among Google’s outspoken employees, the legal risks facing the company have become background noise. For two decades the company has been one of Silicon Valley’s apex predators, and its workers have grown accustomed to Google’s breezing past regulatory scrutiny. Why expect something different this time?

Besides, they added, the more pressing threat to Google is a competitive one posed by Microsoft and OpenAI, the maker of the ChatGPT chatbot. (The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December for copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems.)

Closing arguments in the trial began on Thursday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and are expected to last two days. The Justice Department has taken aim at Google’s search business, claiming the company illegally extended its monopoly by forging default search deals with browser makers, such as Apple and Mozilla. Google has said that the contracts are legal and that its innovations have broadened competition, not constricted it.

Peter Schottenfels, a Google spokesman, said in a statement that the Justice Department’s case “is deeply flawed.”

“Our employees know that we face intense competition — we experience it every day,” Mr. Schottenfels said. “That’s why we are focused on building innovative and helpful products that people choose to use.”

On Thursday, Judge Amit P. Mehta stress-tested the Justice Department’s and Google’s arguments in court. He prodded the Justice Department on its assertion that Google’s market power had hindered its search engine’s innovation or quality for consumers.

“I’m struggling to see how I could reach findings of fact that would say, ‘Google has not done enough,’ or ‘Google’s product has worsened over the course of 10 years,’ in such a way that I could say it’s because of lack of competition,” Judge Mehta said.

He also questioned Google’s assertion that it faced competition from sites like Amazon, where consumers go to search for pricing and other results while shopping, saying the average person would see a difference between Google and Amazon.

Soon, it will be up to Judge Mehta to decide. If Google loses, there is a wide range of potential consequences. Google could be forced to make small changes to its business practices or face a ban on the types of default contracts that have helped make its search engine ubiquitous. The Justice Department could also call for the divestiture of one of Google’s search distribution platforms like the Chrome browser or the Android mobile operating system — a drastic but less likely outcome.

For more than a decade, Google has faced fines and government lawsuits in Europe and elsewhere, while notching significant revenue and profit gains. That has made all the legal wrangling look like the cost of doing business to some employees, two people said.

Google employees have been taught to avoid talking or writing about lawsuits. The company always tells employees to “communicate with care,” as laid out in an internal document reviewed by The Times. In other words, what you write can end up becoming an embarrassing bit of evidence in court.

When an employee in Google’s advertising department recently mentioned news articles about the antitrust lawsuit at the office, co-workers shook their heads and said, “We don’t talk about that,” the person said.

But lawsuits happen all the time. In the last six months, Google has settled cases at a steady clip, ending privacy, patent and antitrust claims against the company. Those suits didn’t cause much to change, leading some employees to believe that this case is no different.

When employees do talk about the Justice Department suit, they echo one of the company’s arguments: that the allegations against Google Search are outdated, especially as the tech industry has rushed to develop artificial intelligence systems that could alter the search market, two people said.

Some employees expect all the legal hype around the search case to boil down to small business tweaks and some fines, two people said.

Despite the confidence of employees, William Kovacic, a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said in an interview that companies targeted for antitrust violations often lost a step, citing IBM and Microsoft. He expects Google to have a similar experience, he said.

The lawsuits can “inject a little more caution into how the company operates,” said Mr. Kovacic, who now teaches competition at George Washington University. “To some degree, I feel they’ve already lost. They’ll never be the same.”

Google’s executives had hoped employees would ignore the Justice Department suit. When it was filed in the fall of 2020, Sundar Pichai, the company’s chief executive, told employees to stay focused on their jobs and not let it distract them.

Kent Walker, the company’s chief legal officer, said he had assigned several hundred employees to work on Google’s defense, with the litigation led by three outside law firms and dozens of in-house lawyers.

In the years since, Mr. Pichai hasn’t usually mentioned the suit and downplayed it when addressing employees at all-hands meetings, three people said. And the company has reiterated the need to be mum, sending emails to employees instructing them not to discuss the case publicly or with the press, two people said.

Lately, other issues have captured workers’ attention more. On Memegen, a forum that serves as Google’s virtual water cooler, a person said, commenters have continued to discuss topics like the ongoing layoffs, jobs moving to India and protests against the Israeli cloud deal, known as Project Nimbus, which led Google to fire 50 participants for disrupting and occupying workspaces.

On Tuesday, Mr. Pichai said that it was fine for employees to disagree about sensitive topics, but that they could not cross the line.

“We’re a business,” he said.

David McCabe and Cecilia Kang contributed reporting from Washington.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sci-Tech

Why TikTok Users Are Blocking Celebrities

Published

on


As protests over the war in Gaza unfolded blocks away, last week’s Met Gala was largely devoid of political statements on the red carpet. That the organizers of fashion’s most powerful annual spectacle (one for which tickets cost $75,000 this year) achieved this proved surprising to many observers. Less than two weeks later, though, a fast-growing online protest movement is taking shape. At least, it is on TikTok, the social media platform that was a sponsor of the Met event.

Blockout 2024, also referred to as Operation Blockout or Celebrity Block Party, targets high-profile figures who participants feel are not using their profiles and platforms to speak out about the Israel-Hamas war and wider humanitarian crises. Here’s what has happened so far, what supporters hope to achieve and why it all began.

The criticism began on May 6, when Haley Kalil (@haleyybaylee on social media), an influencer who was a host on E! News before the event, posted a TikTok video of herself wearing a lavish 18th-century-style floral gown and headdress with audio from Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film “Marie Antoinette,” in which Kirsten Dunst proclaims, “Let them eat cake!”

The clip (for which Ms. Kalil later apologized and which was deleted) was viewed widely. Given the current global conflicts and humanitarian crises, critics described it as “tone deaf.” Then posts emerged comparing ostentatious costumes worn by celebrities on the Met red carpet to scenes from “The Hunger Games,” in which affluent citizens in opulent outfits wine and dine while watching the suffering of the impoverished districts for sport.

Images of Zendaya, a Met Gala co-chair, spliced with photographs of Palestinian children, incited the online masses. A rallying cry soon came from @ladyfromtheoutside, a TikTok creator who found inspiration in Ms. Kalil’s parroting of Marie Antoinette.

“It’s time for the people to conduct what I want to call a digital guillotine — a ‘digitine,’ if you will,” she said in a May 8 video post with two million views. “It’s time to block all the celebrities, influencers and wealthy socialites who are not using their resources to help those in dire need. We gave them their platforms. It’s time to take it back, take our views away, our likes, our comments, our money.”

“Block lists” of celebrities thought to be deserving of being blocked were published and widely shared online.

The movement is made up of pro-Palestinian supporters who have been assessing the actions and words of A-listers in order to decide if they have adequately responded to the conflict. If they have said nothing or not enough, the movement calls for those supporting Gaza to block that celebrity on social media. What constitutes sufficient action by the famous person — be it calls for a cease-fire, donations to aid charities or statements — appears unclear and can vary from celebrity to celebrity.

“Blockout” supporters argue that blocking is important because brands look at data on the followers and engagement of influencers and celebrities on social media before choosing whether to work with them to promote a product. Blocking someone on social media means you no longer see any posts from the person’s accounts, and it gives the blocker more control over who has access to their own updates and personal information. It can have more impact than unfollowing a celebrity account because many product deals thrive on targeted ads and views that can accumulate even if a user simply sees a post, without liking or sharing it.

If enough people block a content creator, it could reduce the creator’s ability to make money. Also, adherents of this thinking say, why follow someone whose values don’t align with yours?

Attendees with huge followings, like Zendaya, Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner, have been at the top of the chopping blocks. But so have celebrities who didn’t attend the gala this year, including Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez.

Vogue, which according to Puck News published 570 Met Gala stories on its platforms and recorded more than a billion video views of content from the night, has also been targeted because of its ties to the event.

“The Met Gala is by far and away Vogue’s biggest cash cow,” Elaina Bell, a former Vogue employee, said in a TikTok post with 850,000 views. She explained that the event sold sponsorships “based on the data of past events,” adding, “How the Met Gala is seen is so important to the bottom line of Vogue specifically but also to Condé Nast.”

It certainly raised some eyebrows. The dress code was “The Garden of Time,” inspired by the J.G. Ballard short story of the same name. It’s an allegorical tale about an aristocratic couple isolated in their estate of fading beauty harassed by an enormous crowd preparing to overrun and destroy the space. Rather on the nose.

Yes. Some posts say the blockout is a negative example of “cancel culture.” Others suggest that, like other social media-led movements, it is digital posturing that generates little meaningful change.

Some argue that celebrities do not have a duty (or the awareness) to speak out on complicated geopolitical issues, and they question why it matters what famous people think about those issues, anyway. Others feel the movement has blurred parameters, given that some A-listers, like Jennifer Lopez and Billie Eilish, have previously shown support for a cease-fire in Gaza but are being punished for not speaking up now.

Several stars on the widely circulated block lists, including Lizzo and the influencer Chris Olsen, posted their first public videos asking followers to donate in support of aid organizations serving Palestinians. Blockout supporters have also worked to “boost” celebrities who have recently spoken about the conflict, like Macklemore, Dua Lipa and The Weeknd.

According to metrics from the analytics company Social Blade, many names on block lists have lost tens or hundreds of thousand of followers per day since the “digitine” began. But murky claims that stars like Kim Kardashian have lost millions of followers are unsubstantiated.

Will more A-listers start speaking out on the red carpet as a result of the lists? It is too soon to tell. But for frequent users of TikTok, the brand aura of the Met Gala is being profoundly altered. And while social-media-led boycotts are by no means unprecedented, this latest movement is a clear example of the growing power of creators to redistribute or even weaponize ​platforms that are cornerstones of a modern celebrity-centric — and capitalist — system.





Source link

Continue Reading

Sci-Tech

Grand Theft Auto maker firms up GTA 6 release date

Published

on



The latest instalment of the hugely popular series will be released in autumn 2025, its publisher says.



Source link

Continue Reading

Sci-Tech

OpenAI’s Flirty New Assistant, Google Guts the Web and We Play HatGPT



This week, OpenAI unveiled GPT-4o, its newest A.I. model. It has an uncannily emotive voice that everybody is talking about. Then, we break down the biggest announcements from Google IO, including the launch of A.I. overviews, a major change to search that threatens the way the entire web functions. And finally, Kevin and Casey discuss the weirdest headlines from the week in another round of HatGPT.

Additional Reading:

“Hard Fork” is hosted by Kevin Roose and Casey Newton and produced by Whitney Jones and Rachel Cohn. The show is edited by Jen Poyant. Engineering by Isaac Jones and original music by Dan Powell, Elisheba Ittoop and Rowan Niemisto. Fact-checking by Caitlin Love.

Special thanks to Paula Szuchman, Pui-Wing Tam, Nell Gallogly, Kate LoPresti and Jeffrey Miranda.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2024 World Daily Info. Powered by Columba Ventures Co. Ltd.