2020年7月29日 星期三

On Tech: Congress doesn’t get it. By design.

Members of Congress may say dumb things at the tech hearing, but it's not necessarily their fault.

Congress doesn’t get it. By design.

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, testified before the Senate in 2018.Tom Brenner/The New York Times

I’ll make an easy prediction about Wednesday’s congressional hearing into the power of big tech companies: Members of Congress will say dumb things.

But please don’t believe that these people are too old or too clueless to exercise effective oversight of tech superpowers.

This idea, which is prevalent inside of tech companies, lets the tech giants off the hook for what they do. It shows a smug superiority that is not a good look. And it ignores that tech companies are built around software that is designed not to be understood by outsiders.

After Mark Zuckerberg’s first turns in the congressional hot seat two years ago, people inside of Facebook thought that their boss had completely dominated those old fogies. I’ve heard this from Facebook executives. Their conclusions have worried me.

Members of Congress were fairly blamed for not understanding Facebook, but Zuckerberg didn’t get enough blame for failing to make Facebook understood. He dodged, occasionally misled and essentially tried to say as little as possible about how Facebook works. At points, he didn’t seem to know how Facebook worked, either.

Executives from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple at a hearing last year likewise seemed to intentionally deflect or dismiss what were generally excellent questions from lawmakers. (Seriously, I could have stared at C-SPAN for many more hours.) No one inside the big tech companies should have felt like they “won.”

ADVERTISEMENT

To be fair, that is part of the theatrics of all congressional hearings. Members of Congress grandstand and witnesses generally try to be inoffensive or run out the clock.

Yet it’s in everyone’s interest to complete this set of hearings and effectively address these central questions: Are these big technology companies cheating to get a leg up over competitors? If so, does that hurt all of us and what — if anything — should the government do about it?

If members of Congress are confused about how to ask and answer these questions, that’s partly because big tech companies are confusing.

Few people on the outside can truly understand how Amazon influences the prices of products we buy on its site or at other retailers; assess fears that Google funnels people to its own websites or that Apple steers people to its own apps; or peer into Facebook’s strategy to squash rivals in their cribs. All of this is, by design, shrouded in secrecy and mystery.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even many of the big tech companies now say that there needs to be more federal oversight and rules regarding areas like protecting elections and what constitutes appropriate speech online.

That means everyone — the tech companies, lawmakers and you and me — have a vested interest in getting under the hood of these big companies and seeing how they work.

This is a worthy goal — just as it was to assess the big banks after the 2008 financial crisis. Those banks also thought Congress was too clueless to question them effectively. Maybe so, but regulation came anyway.

What questions do you have about the hearing and the power of big tech? Send them to ontech@nytimes.com, and Shira will answer a selection in an upcoming newsletter. Please include your full name and location.

ADVERTISEMENT

Don’t fall for these distractions at the hearing

Me again, taking another moment to talk about Wednesday’s hearing — Sorry! Not sorry! — to explain what it is NOT about.

How big the tech companies are compared with the planet Jupiter: In his prepared testimony for Wednesday’s hearing, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos cited competition from the grocery delivery service Instacart and mentioned the fast sales growth of Walmart’s online shopping operation.

Sure, but online sales at those companies are a minuscule fraction of Amazon’s. There will be a lot of slicing and dicing of data for misdirection like this. Please ignore.

The assessment of tech company power is not solely about their size or that of rivals. It is also about their behavior: Do big tech companies tilt the game to their advantage in a way that creates less competition?

Whether these sites show political bias: We’ll hear a lot about this today, because some conservatives and Republican politicians argue that big tech companies habitually squash information reflecting conservative perspectives.

There’s little credible reporting to support this, but a root cause of the concern is what I mentioned above: Outsiders can’t see or assess the software that determines what information we see online. Black boxes naturally create suspicion.

How tech companies influence what information we’re exposed to, and how they fairly police what people say online, are complicated topics worthy of debate. However, I’m not sure that there’s a direct connection between those topics and the central question at Wednesday’s hearing: Do big tech companies cheat to win?

How many American jobs they create: In a letter to Congress, Google’s chief executive touted a (delicious sounding) brownie shop in New York that drums up business from buying ads on Google. Bezos talked up Amazon training programs to pay for warehouse workers to move into higher-paying careers.

This is great! We want American companies to create jobs and contribute to economic growth. But companies that create jobs and support small businesses can still break the law by unfairly exercising their power and influence.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Before we go …

  • How to support alternatives to Big Tech: My colleague Brian X. Chen tells us how we can help tech’s little guys if we’re concerned about having choices. Brian suggests trying the search engine DuckDuckGo, the social network Mastodon and other alternatives to Big Tech products; advises us to buy used electronics to help repair shops and resellers; and asks us to consider paying for software we like from smaller companies rather than taking freebies from the tech giants.
  • That coronavirus video was tailored to go wild: My colleagues Sheera Frenkel and Davey Alba walked through the stagecraft of a viral video that promoted an unproven coronavirus treatment as a miracle cure. With ingredients including an official-looking setting, people in white medical coats and the ability to clip the video and share it on social media easily, the video had been designed to appeal to those who don’t trust public health officials and want quick fixes to get past the pandemic.
  • Can facial recognition technology be effective, unbiased and do more good than harm? Those are questions raised by this Reuters investigation into the use of the technology at 200 Rite Aid drugstores in the United States.Facial recognition systems that were intended partly to notify store workers about potential shoplifters were more likely to be installed at stores in neighborhoods with a large share of lower-income or Black or Latino residents, and shoppers were not generally told that their images were being captured and analyzed. At times the facial recognition software also misidentified people. Rite Aid told Reuters it had suspended use of the cameras.

Hugs to this

This dancing duet of a woman and cat is just plain weird. (Thanks to the Bloomberg columnist Tae Kim for bringing this TikTok video into my life.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Ends soon: Navigate the facts. $0.25 a week.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the news.
 
The New York Times View in Browser
 
 
SUBSCRIBE FOR $0.25 A WEEK. ENDS SOON.
 
As the world transforms, our journalists provide clarity.
Get unlimited digital access for $0.25 a week. Offer ends soon.
 
 
No commitment required. Cancel anytime.
 
Offer expires August 1, 2020, 10 a.m. E.T. Your payment method will automatically be charged in advance every 4 weeks at the introductory rate for one year and at the standard rate thereafter. All subscriptions renew automatically. You can cancel anytime. These offers are not available for current subscribers. Mobile apps are not supported on all devices. Other restrictions and taxes may apply. Offers and pricing are subject to change without notice.
 
This email was sent to puseguliao.mail02@blogger.com
 
Account Login | Help Center
Attn.: Customer Service, P.O. Box 8041, Davenport, IA 52808-8041
 
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | California Notices | Unsubscribe
 
©2020 The New York Times Company | 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018
 
 
                                                           

'This Is Going to Be Long-Term Chaos'

Diaper banks are struggling to meet increased needs.

‘This Is Going to Be Long-Term Chaos'

Mar Hernández

A few months ago, Chelsea Murgatroyd turned to her local diaper bank for a supply of diapers and wipes. Murgatroyd, 29, who has a 4-year-old and 8-month-old in Austin, Texas, co-owned a carpet cleaning business with her husband that opened two years ago. They worked mostly with hotels, but as soon as the coronavirus shutdown happened in March, “all our work was gone,” she said, and ultimately they had to shutter the business. Their savings went quickly. Murgatroyd found the Austin Diaper Bank through a Google search. “We needed help,” she said. “I have never used a charity in my life. That was very different and humbling for me.”

Many families across the country are turning to diaper banks to meet basic needs because of pandemic-related job losses. Over 56 million people with children under 18 at home say they, or their household, has lost income since March 13, 2020, according to the most recent Household Pulse Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau.

“We’re at about a 300 percent increase to where we were last year in terms of families that need diapers, wipes and period supplies,” said Holly McDaniel, the executive director of the Austin Diaper Bank. Troy Moore, the chief of external affairs for the National Diaper Bank Network, said that across the United States, their locations are “distributing on average, 50 percent more diapers monthly to families in need than before Covid-19.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Not being able to provide basics for your children can have a “a cascading effect,” said Myra Jones-Taylor, the chief policy officer for Zero to Three, a nonprofit focused on the well-being of infants and toddlers. Jones-Taylor is part of a national group that has been tracking emotional well-being during the virus through a weekly survey by the University of Oregon. Since April 6, researchers have surveyed 2,400 caregivers across the socioeconomic spectrum, and, according to Jones-Taylor, they have found that when “caregivers report financial and material hardship, within a week it leads to caregiver emotional distress,” which can include sleeplessness and anxiety. By the following week, “caregiver emotional distress is linked to child emotional distress.”

In the early days of the pandemic, I wrote about how panic-buying left many grocery stores and online retailers out of formula, diapers and wipes. Since then, the supply chains have stabilized for those products and many others, said Karthik Natarajan, an assistant professor of supply chain and operations at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, though parents may still have issues finding less popular or specialty products. Anecdotally, parents across the country have told me about issues finding preemie diapers, sensitive wipes and their preferred brands in local stores.

Panic-buying in March and April was particularly damaging for parents who are part of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, because the checks they receive only cover specific products in specific amounts.

In late March, I talked to Catie Weimer, 33, a WIC participant in Ogden, Utah, who couldn’t find Alimentum, a hypoallergenic formula, in the quantities her WIC check would allow her to purchase. When I checked in with Weimer last week, she said that supplies seem to be back to normal at grocery stores in her area.

ADVERTISEMENT

She also said that WIC had restructured their checks in a way that made buying the formula easier. Previously, her WIC checks (which she collects every three months) were for two sets of four cans each, so if she could only find two cans at one store, she could not get reimbursed and find the other two cans elsewhere. When Weimer got her new checks in June, they were split into three checks, two of which were for two cans, the third was for three cans. “If there’s a shortage, you can find two cans more easily,” she said.

She also has additional backup formula now, because after the article was published, many readers tracked her down and sent her supplies. “I have donated so much to our local mutual aid,” Weimer said.

However, not all supply chain issues have been resolved. The increased need for diapers, wipes and formula is now shifting from stores to diaper banks and other charities. “The people who used to go and probably buy these at a store are now seeking more at food banks and other donation channels. That imbalance, that shift in demand, that could have a huge ripple effect in terms of whether the customer can get products or not,” Natarajan said.

Samantha London, 32, who has a 7-year-old, 5-year-old and 4-month-old and lives in Brooklyn, said that she’s had issues with both finding her preferred baby products and affording them. Her daughter spent time in the NICU because she was only three pounds at birth, and her family could not find preemie diapers at stores nearby. When they tried to find them online, companies were selling them at exorbitant prices they could not afford. London is not working right now, as she’s taking care of her baby and her children who are out of school; her husband’s job in construction has slowed down considerably, making their financial circumstances precarious.

ADVERTISEMENT

London posted on NextDoor, a social network that connects people by neighborhood, about her challenge to find diapers in the size her daughter needed, and a few of her neighbors gave her their extra supplies. She ended up investing in cloth diapers, and her father-in-law drove all the way from New York to Delaware to find the kind of sensitive wipes her baby needed, for a fair price.

McDaniel of Austin Diaper Bank said she does not see things getting better any time soon. Her organization is moving as quickly as it can, but it is already struggling to meet the demand while keeping their staff and volunteers safe from the virus. “This is going to be long-term chaos,” she said.

To find out more about donating diapers, visit the National Diaper Bank Network site.

Dani Blum contributed reporting.

P.S. Click here to read all NYT Parenting coverage on coronavirus. Follow us on Instagram @NYTParenting. Join us on Facebook. Find us on Twitter for the latest updates. Read last week’s newsletter, about the importance of play.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.
My 5-year-old is obsessed with board games, and this week we convinced him that his stuffed animals love to play Monopoly Junior with him. Now they are playing and I’m sitting quietly nearby finishing a project for work. — Julia S., San Francisco

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018