2020年10月7日 星期三

On Tech: Congress agrees: Big Tech is broken.

Lawmakers release a scathing report on Big Tech. Here's what you need to know.

Congress agrees: Big Tech is broken.

Leif Gann-Matzen

It is stunning that members of Congress mostly agree that four of America’s most successful companies are bullies that abuse their power to stay on top.

That was my thought reading the conclusions of a 16-month congressional investigation into whether Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple broke the law to squash competition. The assessment was, essentially, yup.

The Democrats and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have major points of disagreement, and only Democrats signed this report. But while the two parties are divided — possibly irreconcilably so — over how to fix the problem, they appear to mostly agree that those four companies should not be allowed to continue as is.

It’s not unusual to hate on large companies; it was true of big banks and oil companies at the peak of their power. But still. This feels like a moment that reflects real discomfort and derision for big technology companies, and I’m not sure there is a way to go back to the shinier, happier days.

On to some of my assessments of the report. (You can read all 449 pages for yourself here.)

It is so relentlessly negative. Where is the nuance? The House report was unequivocal that Google and Facebook are monopolies, and that elements of Amazon and Apple are as well. (My colleagues have more specifics.)

ADVERTISEMENT

One thing that struck me is that the House Democrats saw almost everything that the big tech companies do as evidence of illegal anti-competitive activity. It felt overdone. And there was little recognition of what the U.S. economy and people have gained from the success of these tech giants.

A small example: House members called out Google for preventing other companies that make digital maps from collecting data from people’s Android phones. In the report’s telling, Google’s data advantage let Google Maps chart the planet, but no rival mapping companies had a shot.

That is true but also … Google’s action helped secure people’s digital privacy. Wouldn’t it be bad if every creepy app had access to our location when we roamed around the world?

The proposed fixes are BIG IDEAS: The Democrats who signed this report are proposing nothing short of a rewriting of laws that govern corporations, and a reimagining of how lots of familiar businesses work.

ADVERTISEMENT

The five-alarm-fire proposed fix from the Democrats is to force Big Tech to effectively break up — if not literally than at least by not letting one part of a company promote another, giving it an edge over competitors. Don’t let Amazon sell its own products on its marketplace, for example, and don’t permit Google to require Samsung to install Google apps on Android phones.

There’s more. The House report suggests rewriting laws so people who believe a big tech company is unfairly crushing their business — merchants who sell products on Amazon, for example — can sue in court to force legal accountability for anticompetitive actions. (Right now, the tech superpowers force most complaints into arbitration, which doesn’t impose punishments.)

Another one: Change the legal standard so companies like Facebook can’t buy other companies without proving that doing so will enhance competition and help consumers.

These and other proposed changes are huge. I don’t know if these ideas are all good — or if they will happen. And I am concerned that there is no recognition of the downsides to these fixes. But I want to give the lawmakers credit for not being afraid to think big.

ADVERTISEMENT

The competition watchdogs need more teeth: House members said the government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission that are responsible for enforcing antitrust laws repeatedly failed. They too often left unchallenged Big Tech’s pattern of getting more powerful by acquiring competitors, and they did not crack down when these companies broke the law and their word. To this I say, YES.

The House members recommended more funding for the F.T.C. and other antitrust enforcement agencies, requiring them to keep better data on industry consolidation and generally suggesting they stop being afraid to go after the biggest fish.

I welcome more muscular enforcement of existing laws. I wonder how many transgressions by these companies in recent years — including Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal — could have been avoided if government watchdogs kept Big Tech on a shorter leash. (Also, hello, the F.T.C. may want to look at Facebook integrating its apps.)

House members did their homework. Also they are FURIOUS: Let this House investigation forever end the idea that members of Congress are too clueless to effectively oversee big tech companies. Even if you disagree with their conclusions, these people showed that they get how these companies operate.

Also, they are so mad, you guys. Laced through the report is contempt at what House members saw as attempts by Big Tech to evade or sneer at lawmakers. One example: House members said they asked Amazon for a list of the company’s top 10 competitors. Amazon gave them 1,700 names, including Eero (a Wi-Fi equipment company Amazon owns), a discount surgical supply distributor and a beef jerky company.

No one likes to be poked and prodded by Congress, but the members were right that these four companies are arrogant, and that blinds them to justified criticism. With this report, the tech giants have reasons to feel the House overreached. I hope this time they don’t miss that there is also legitimate pushback.

The Republicans were divided: In a separate draft report by Republican members, they agreed that stronger antitrust enforcement was needed for Big Tech, but said that some of the Democrats’ proposed legal changes — including eliminating arbitration clauses — were too drastic. They also criticized their colleagues for not tackling perceived conservative bias by big tech companies. Others have refused to endorse any of the Democrats’ findings, my colleagues reported.

I’m still struck by how much agreement there was on the problem. That suggests that, if Congress actually does something — not a given — business as usual will be impossible for Big Tech.

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

Before we go …

  • Facebook isn’t thinking small, either: The company took sweeping action against the baseless QAnon conspiracy by saying it would delete anything that identified with QAnon from Facebook and Instagram, my colleague Sheera Frenkel reported.People concerned about the real-world harm from QAnon said Facebook was too tame in its prior crackdowns and cheered this approach. But one problem with banning the movement is that its ideas have seeped into more mainstream ideas. Plus, believers have been adept at skirting Facebook’s rules.
  • Weren’t we just talking about the overreach of Big Tech? Would you like to buy a Chromecast, the streaming TV device that recommends entertainment based on what Google knows about you? My colleague Brian X. Chen found the gadget complicated, creepy and mostly pointless because the Chromecast viewing recommendations were hit or miss.
  • Dating in a pandemic is weird: In the last few months, people using online dating apps have gotten less picky and more willing to fast track new relationships so they aren’t alone in anxious times, wrote my colleagues Jonah Engel Bromwich and Sandra E. Garcia. Special mention to the professional dating app ghostwriter (!!!) and the woman who deleted all her dating apps because “it sucks to deal with the pandemic and a bad relationship.”

Hugs to this

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

Parenting Was Never Meant to Be This Isolating

Nuclear families have always relied on a community for practical support.

Parenting Was Never Meant to Be This Isolating

Kiki Ljung

“Everyone seems to forget that being a parent is, for most people, a choice.”

“I understand these are uncertain times, but I can’t tell you how many pre-pandemic complaints I’ve heard from parents about the care of their own children. Your kids are not someone else’s responsibility.”

“When we were raised, one of our parents stayed home and raised us. They didn’t drag us off to a stranger’s house at 6 a.m. so both of them could be ‘fulfilled.’"

These are some of the comments generated by an article about tech workers without children, who were griping that colleagues who are parents have received an unfair amount of leave during the pandemic. The notion that selfish parents get too many perks and benefits yet still complain about kids who should be their sole responsibility isn’t new; that idea was around pre-Covid.

But as our entire country is under duress, with massive job losses, the threat of illness and various other uncertainties across the board, I have noticed more people expressing these kinds of thoughts, especially whenever I write about mental health issues among parents.

What this criticism fails to grasp is that throughout basically all of human history, parents have never, ever raised children in isolated nuclear units the way they have been doing for much of 2020, with little to no hands-on family or community support. Individual families being completely responsible for children “is absolutely unheard of except in total emergencies,” said Stephanie Coontz, an emeritus professor of history and family at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and the author of “The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap.”

As far back as we can go in prehistory, parents engaged in what biological anthropologists refer to as “cooperative breeding,” said Robin G. Nelson, Ph.D., an associate professor of anthropology at Santa Clara University (and an old friend of mine). That’s the idea that family and community members would help with holding, grooming and sometimes even feeding your baby. Sarah B. Hrdy, an anthropologist, called these helpers “alloparents,” and her research suggests that shared child care may have been “the secret of human evolutionary success.” Dr. Nelson called group living “part of what it means to be human.”

ADVERTISEMENT

When you go back to the beginning of American history, the same facts hold: From Colonial America through the early 20th Century, there were almost no parents whose days were dedicated to just child care without support. Poorer parents worked alongside their children as young as 5 in crowded tenement sweatshops, textile mills and in the fields, while older children and other family helped care for children too young to work. And wealthier white families were not doing the child care without household workers. “Middle-class women were able to shift more time into child rearing in the 1800s only by hiring domestic help,” Coontz noted.

In fact, one parent (the mom) staying home and only spending her time on housework and child care was “a historical fluke,” for the white middle and upper classes that began in the 1940s and 50s, “based on a unique and temporary conjuncture of economic, social and political factors,” Coontz wrote in “The Way We Never Were.” As she points out, during World War II, Americans saved money at a rate that was “three times higher than in the decades before or since,” and real wages increased more in the 50s than they had in the previous 50 years.

And they were not “alone” the way many parents are during this pandemic. Middle-class mothers who stayed home with their children did so in communities of other mothers like them — the children would be pushed out to play in suburban neighborhoods. Even in the heyday of the American nuclear family, only the wealthiest white families were able to live that Donna Reed life — as Coontz points out in her book, one-third of nonimmigrant white families “could not get by on the income of the household head.”

Black families were excluded from this vision, and were fighting for basic civil rights in the 50s and 60s. As Dr. Nelson noted, even the idea that children are an active “choice” for most people erases the history of forced sterilization of Black, Native American, Asian and Latina women. Just last month there were reports of a whistle-blower calling out potential unwanted hysterectomies performed on immigrants at an ICE facility earlier this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even before the pandemic, modern mothers and fathers were spending more time with their children than they did 45 years ago. As my colleague Claire Cain Miller has pointed out, mothers were spending five hours a week doing things like reading to children, ferrying them to activities and helping them with homework, compared to 1 hour and 45 minutes in 1975, and they have less solo leisure time than their midcentury counterparts.

Those parents “complaining” about caring for their kids are possibly doing so because this is not sustainable. Parents are sending their kids to “a stranger’s house” for child care not because they want to be “fulfilled,” but because they need to afford basic necessities for their families, or if they’re lucky, they are saving for retirement and college. At this point, many parents who remain employed are scared to lose their jobs or be pushed out of them to care for children — analysis from the National Women’s Law Center suggests that of the 1.1 million workers who dropped out of the labor force last month, 80 percent were women.

But despite some very loud griping about parents on the internet, Coontz believes that most people are “pretty damn sympathetic to mothers and fathers.” In my real life, not my virtual life, I have received so much support and kindness from colleagues and friends during this time, regardless of parental status. Living through a pandemic weighs heavily on us all: We cannot hug our loved ones, there are over 200,000 dead and an estimated 1.8 million Americans are grieving the loss of relatives. We should be extending grace in all directions, instead of fighting for scraps.

P.S. Follow us on Instagram @NYTParenting. If this was forwarded to you, sign up for the NYT Parenting newsletter here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Want More on Parental Stress During the Pandemic?

  • A new poll from NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health suggests that “60 percent of households with children across the country have lost jobs, or businesses, or have had wages reduced during the pandemic.”
  • The stresses on parents and their kids, particularly the ones struggling to make ends meet, are intense. In a previous newsletter, Pooja Lakshmin, M.D., a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., said that we need to be treating the pandemic as “a mental health crisis, and one that does not have an end we can see.”
  • Considering the state of the world, no wonder parents need something to take the edge off! “My hobby is doom scrolling and learning the science of Covid and smoking weed and sitting on the toilet staring at the wall,” Julie Kortekaas, 36, a mother of two children ages 10 and 18, and a health-food restaurant owner in London, Ontario, told me. “I just hide in my bathroom and vape.”

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.

My 17-month-old only cried the last hour of a five-hour car ride. Sharon Jakopchek, Washington, D.C.

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