Would you like to receive this two minute summary as an email every day of the week? Register here!
Dogs are play a big role in human cancer research
Cancer in older dogs is very common, but it turns out that treatments for your furry friend also have implications for people. Many types of cancer dogs resemble those found in humans. Through collaboration between Animal Medicine and Human Medicine as part of Obama's Cancer Moonshot initiative, researchers are investigating treatments that could save the lives of dogs and people.
A Phishing scam of Amazon Strike just in time for the First Day
With the first day of Amazon around the corner, the security company Mcafee detailed phishing this allows hackers to send an email that resembles that of Amazon, with a PDF attachment that leads anyone who clicks on a website mimicking an Amazon login page. From there, the malicious site not only asks for the victim's name, but also their birthday, home address, credit card information, and social security number. Remember: always check who your emails come from and do not open attachments unless you are sure it comes from someone you trust.
The FTC hit Facebook with a record $ 5 billion settlement
After months of negotiations, FTC reportedly fined Facebook a record $ 5 billion for his privacy violations If approved by the civilian division of the Department of Justice, it will be the first substantive sanction imposed on Facebook in the United States. But until then, important issues remain unresolved, for example if the FTC will personally hold Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and what kind of external control Facebook may have to follow.
The controversy surrounding voice assistants for smartphones has stoked its flames this week when a Belgian public broadcaster has had access to more than 1,000 Google Assistant records from a Google entrepreneur responsible for reviewing them. What are the providers listening to Google Assistant queries? Everything from requests for pornography to family arguments, medical discussions and conversations with children.
Scooters are in fashion these days, but what can you do if you do not want to share your scooter with someone else? Well, you can buy one just for you and the Boosted scooter is as attractive as possible.
How taming Slack for a more productive day of work.
This daily report is available via the newsletter. You can register just here to make sure you receive the news in your inbox every day of the week!
Nicholas Thompson: What I'm going to do here are the arguments Mark Zuckerberg gave on antitrust yesterday, in the most equitable way possible, and then, Tim, I want you to respond. So it will be a bit like Tim was on stage yesterday.
Mark has two arguments, and the company often has a third. First, if you divide large platforms into small businesses, they will not be competitive for the products you want. They will not compete to make their platform safer, they will not compete for privacy. They will only compete with what you do not want, pure growth. And if you have smaller platforms, they will be able to do things like 30,000 people to find all the bad things on Facebook. This is the number one argument.
Argument Number Two: If you separate the big American tech companies, you'll give a advantage for Chinabecause there are some technologies for which you need big companies. For example, many types of artificial intelligence require massive data sets and calculations, which you only have in large technology companies. And it's not like China is picking on Alibaba. As we move towards a technological cold war, the US government is attacking technology platforms in the shin while the Chinese government is helping its big companies. So, it's number two. Mark did not do it yesterday, but others on Facebook did it.
Third, Tim, you specifically said that Facebook's anti-trust remedy is to split Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram to end these mergers. You can discuss whether they should have been approved or not. But they have been approved. You said to relax them. And what Mark said yesterday is, hey, sometimes mergers are bad, no doubt. But these mergers were not. Instagram had 13 employees when Facebook bought it. It did not have Android application. Without Facebook, Instagram does not become what it is. It has become much more innovative thanks to Facebook, and the same can be said of WhatsApp.
So, if you could accept these three arguments, we'll go through them.
Tim Wu: Happy to. Let me make a preface here and talk about my biggest mission. I think we need to reinvigorate a great American tradition, and that's the antitrust tradition. I think we lost some of our pioneering spirit. The American tradition has been to believe in competition, to believe in competitive markets, and Americans have always rebelled against concentrated power. Much of the Constitution divides power to make sure no one has too much. And that's a big part of what we did in 1890, in 1914, and again in 1950: to enact antitrust laws that aimed to control some private powers, to maintain the competitiveness of markets and to prevent them from becoming two or three big players. So it's my big mission. It's the curse of greatness. And that's what I'm trying to do. I am happy to take these arguments in the reverse order.
The first is the easiest. Mark Zuckerberg wrote an email while acquiring Instagram that was revealed in the New York Post, and this suggests that I was buying Instagram because he saw it as a competitive threat. Under US law, buying businesses that you think are competitive is a crime. And it was actually illegal conduct when I bought Instagram. The idea that Instagram would be nothing without the injection of Facebook's capital is false. Instagram already had huge amounts of venture capital funds; They were a little bit rolling in money. In addition, and more importantly, what Mark Zuckerberg did not mention, is that Twitter was trying to buy Instagram, to turn Instagram into a killer on Facebook. Instagram was the most dangerous company for Facebook. Facebook had already destroyed a company like this, MySpace, before. Instagram was a more serious threat for two reasons: first, it was much more powerful on mobile; Second, the photo sharing was better. As one commentator said at the time, Instagram had Facebook's Achilles heel. In the US, we believe in competition and companies must fight, not buy if the competition is serious. We established this principle with the Standard Oil Company. So, the purchase of Instagram was, in terms of intention and effect, an illegal transaction. Saying that there are only 14 people does not respond when Twitter wants to make it a killer on Facebook. I therefore argue that this argument is false.
"I believe we must reinvigorate a great American tradition, namely the antitrust tradition."
The second argument concerns China. Basically, Facebook is asking to become the regulated monopoly of the United States to fight against our foreign enemies. But this country has always trusted competition and innovation rather than national champions. I do not believe that America is a country of national champions. It's actually contrary to what we believe in. We had already faced this problem eleven years ago in the 70s and 80s, while Japan was the big threat. You know, Japan was going to innovate more. They were smarter. The government was not attacking Sony, he knew how to support them. They had the mysteries of the East on their side. Thus, AT & T and IBM, the great American monopolists, declared: "Yes, you must support us in our fight against Japan."
What did we do? We broke AT & T. We chased IBM for its anti-competitive behavior. And at the end of this battle, it turned out that these companies held back a lot. The personal computer, the software industry, the boom of the '80s and' 90s came out of the IBM carcass. IBM is not dead on the AT & T carcass, AT & T is not dead, but their numbers have decreased, their grip on the industry has been broken. As a result, we have entered the new telecommunications industry, into the new internet industry, into the Internet service provider industry and into all the industries that concern us today. So there is a lesson to be learned: when we break up stifling monopolies, it often results in more growth.
Europe and Japan are two countries that have been on the program of national champions in the 70s and 80s: I have not heard about them for a long time in the technology markets.
So that's the danger I'm warning about. Do not follow Japan and Europe. Let's follow the lessons of the United States. Challenge our largest technology companies, force them to compete and the United States will continue to be a champion of technology in the world.
What was number three again?
NT: Number three was Zuckerberg's argument that if you divide them, newly independent companies will compete for products you do not like, not the ones you love. They will compete on growth, not on privacy, security, election security, and so on.
TW: I think that still betrays a lack of confidence in the competition. Because I have written a lot about history, I have spent a lot of time with AT & T 's monopoly, and that' s the argument that it 's all about. they have always advanced. They said that if you interrupt AT & T, the phone calls would not pass. You know, long distance calls must cost $ 1 per minute to be of high quality. All this idea of long distance at 10 cents a minute, it's going to be terrible. It's always this fear that if you challenge the power of larger companies, they will not be able to do what you want.
Also, note in this argument that there is a subtle idea where advanced technology is beginning to promise that it will do the government's job for that: We are will ensure security, we are go fight Russia, and so on. First of all, I do not think that Facebook effectively protects this country against foreign attacks. So, they promise more of the same, I do not want to hear it. And I also think that anyone who studies systems knows that centralized systems are dangerous because they offer a huge and giant target. Most people who have studied Russia's interference in the last election suggest that one of the problems is that you had two or three big targets. What would Putin do 20 years ago at the time of the Internet more chaotic? Go put ads on Craigslist or something to try to manipulate the votes? When there are only a few throttling points, a few checkpoints, you are vulnerable to foreign interference. It is at this moment that your security problems arise.
"We trusted Facebook, and they were not trustworthy."
And I think that the fact that the technology sector – which was traditionally the most decentralized and innovative sector of the economy – has become terribly disastrous – has become a place where people just want to create businesses to make themselves buy through Facebook. This is not the kind of ambition we should have for young engineers in this country. I think this shows a lack of confidence in the competition, a lack of confidence in the ecosystem, and refers to the idea of "Trust us, we're going to everything make". We trusted Facebook and they have not proved worthy of trust. I also have a personal interest in this area because I have worked for the government. We put Facebook in order for violation of privacy, and they violated that order so many times that we can not even count it. So why should we trust a repeat business – a company that ignores government orders – to protect privacy, protect the security of this country? It does not make sense to me. That's why I think we need a technological upheaval.
NT: Let me ask you for a follow-up. You have very interestingly pointed out that some of the most important antitrust actions would come from neither the DOJ nor the FTC, nor Europe, but States. Tell me about that How will that disappear and how could this apply to the giants of technology?
TW: Yes, there has been a growing trend, a real change, a return to a different kind of spirit of American federalism. I think the states have begun to fulfill their role by filling the federal government when it is doing nothing. Privacy is a good example. Many people are concerned about privacy. Congress has not done anything for a very long time. So California did something. As they did with the broadcasts. I have worked in the Obama administration and in the antitrust. So I will hire staff here, but we have not provided the supervision of the merger we should have. We allowed too much consolidation of the economy. And I think that has contributed a lot to the anger over the distribution of wealth in this country. States are beginning to intervene.
NT: Is it all from Obama's fault? He approved all these mergers, right? Instagram has arrived under his watch. You know, all the decisions you made us where we were went, and he had about 40 Google employees working for his government. Do you think that the Obama administration has been captured by big technology?
TW: "Captured" may be too loud. I would say that maybe we sometimes had a view too pink. In the early 2000s, you know, there was this honeymoon period where everyone liked technology and really created big companies. It's an American thing that has a lot of confidence in the technologies of the future. Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, many of our heroes are great inventors. And I think that spirit has been maintained. I think no one in the Obama administration took money, but we had that kind of optimistic outlook. And when Mark Zuckerberg came to the Federal Trade Commission, saying, "Oh, I'm sorry for these privacy breaches, but I'm a young man, I did not know what I was doing, we will not do it again never ", everyone believed in it and abandoned the individual lawsuits against him. But in fact, we have been fooled.
I think it's time to really look at how power is allocated. And I repeat that the American tradition, both technologically and economically, is that we believe in decentralized ecosystems and that innovators strive to do their own work. It's the American border. And it's an older tradition. That's, you know, Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis. This is what we need to recover, and I think that is a big part of the answer to some of the dissatisfaction in this country. So, antitrust: I am a believer and it is gone.
The moment was symbolic for Zuckerberg and the confidence that he and his company have lost in recent years. The Aspen Ideas Festival is a quiet and thoughtful place. Heckling is rare. But Facebook has drawn anger and derision everywhere this year, even among the leaders of the mountain opinion. Still, Zuckerberg persevered, arguing his point, which is largely true.
Shortly after, the Facebook leader faces his second challenge. Sunstein motivated him on Facebook's decision to remove a maliciously-amended video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, looking drunk, who had become viral in May. "Why not develop the policy, starting tomorrow, if this reasonable observer could not know that it's a fake, it will be deleted?" Asked Sunstein. The audience responded with enthusiastic applause that seemed to surprise the teacher. "It's the first time I get applauded," he says with a smile.
Zuckerberg began his response by noting that it was an intense topic of discussion within the company. Deepfakes can be a different category of the kind of fake news that Facebook has vast experience treat with. Nevertheless, Facebook begins to think about its answer with the principle used when responding to false statements: limit their distribution but do not delete them completely. You can limit the scope without stifling the speech.
His easiest step would have been to leave the answer here. Instead, Zuckerberg decided to defend his company's decision and associate it with broader principles. "We exist in a society where people value and cherish freedom of expression and the ability to say things, including satire," he said. I then dubbed it, saying that he did not think anyone should mean "a private company" to say "something that thinks is wrong". I added, "It just seems to me too far and away from the tradition of free expression and to be able to tell what your experience is through satire and other means."
At the end of the exchange, Zuckerberg had been doing something increasingly rare in the tech sector in recent years: defending the freedom of expression with a hammer, not a shrug of shoulders. Many of the most difficult decisions made by technology in recent years are the result of a compromise between security and speech. After a decade of favorable speeches, most leaders have recently chosen security. Alex Jones you have been banned Artificial intelligence systems have been put in place filter the word that is cruel. Anonymity has been done more difficult. Zuckerberg, however, seemed to take a stand and when I finished, the audience applauded him warmly.
The rest of the interview covered family ground. Zuckerberg noted that there are important trade-offs between data portability and confidentiality. "Part of the problem today is that we offer people so many choices, controls, and choices that they end up not feeling accessible." And often, if you want to design a simple product that People understand, you just want to make choices that reflect what you think is their best interest. "That's right! But it also sounded a little dark.
As I could have predicted, I argued that antitrust laws would not be a good solution to the problems that Facebook blames. Having several small social media companies, he said, would not make it easy to protect privacy or defend the election. In addition, I added, the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp should not be canceled because Facebook had made these services more innovative, not less. "Yes, some mergers can be bad for innovation." That was not the case. "Sunstein, pressed for time, did not have a chance to really counter. Fortunately, however, this particular subject will eat again at the festival. And also before Congress and Federal Trade Commission.
The audience had used the previous speaker, the rapper Common-out, with a standing ovation. When Zuckerberg's discussion ended, everyone seemed enthusiastic, even if it was a little less. Yet, I only got heckled one time.
For those who simply can not get enough dunewe have good news. In addition to the new film to be released in 2020, WarnerMedia announced this week who is also working on an accompanying series for his streaming service. titled Dune: sorority, the show will focus on the mysterious order of women known as Bene Gesserit. Denis Villeneuve, who directs the film adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel, will also lead the show's pilot and executive production. "The Bene Gesserit have always been fascinating to me," said Villeneuve Variety. "Focusing on series around this powerful women's order seemed not only relevant and inspiring, but also a dynamic setting for the television series."
First of all, Netflix is currently working on a massive adaptation of the Chronicles of Narnia books that will include movies and at least one series. That's out of the way: the streaming service just tapped Coco co-editor Matthew Aldrich led the company in developing all the adaptations. Netflix attracted rights on the seven books Narnia series of the C.S. Lewis Company in 2018.
Hey, so, do you know Watch, the Facebook video platform? Welp, it is about to get even more programming. The society announced this week that in addition to restarting The real world, the social network is also working on a series of documentaries located in the Amazon jungle called Curse of Akakor and shows from BuzzFeed, Tastemade and Studio71. Prepare to spend more time on Facebook than you already do.