[ad_1]
After that two years of research and 30-hour interviews under the House, House of Commerce Committee in the US voted Thursday Passing the six big bucks needed to dominate the Big Tech market.
Although there has been recent special push in a very technical confrontation, this week’s controversy has exposed some great separation between the two groups — and even inside both parties – which could prevent a bill from being debated. Some GOP supporters, such as Jim Jordan from Ohio, have appeared in public insulted against this as a group of “Democrat Bill,” it is excessively crossing among his fellow Republicans. Other Democratic legislators, meanwhile, expressed their concerns about some of the privacy of this bill. On both sides, there was complaining words that the word of the bill was very broad, and could call for some unexpected results for small technical companies, too. Obviously, there is also a consensus among lawmakers from California that these funds will be bad for their providers.
Despite these concerns, the support of both sides of the committee resulted in all six debtors having to face a vote in the future. Undoubtedly, this means that we will hear very compelling from top experts, more conversations from the directors involved, and much more … Jim Jordan-ing from Jim Jordan.
Here’s what you need to know about each payment, so you can follow the pros, cons, and jims:
American Online Selection and Planning
First up with American Online Selection and Planning this is supported by the head of the sub-committee on antitrust David Cicilline, and the Republican Rep. Lance Gooden, of Texas. In short, the bill should prevent major modern companies from choosing their products more than their competitors who use their platforms. This could happen in the Amazon, which has been captured several time smuggling 100 secret companies on top of Amazon search results, right data collection from third-party vendors to create passwords first.
G / O Media can be sent
It would also put the spotlight on Google’s chokehold in the digital advertising market, which is being researched here several countries AG in the US and antitrust managers in the EU. If the bill goes the wrong way, Google should post the results so that Google’s stuff doesn’t get stuck in the same way sometimes do it now. Instead of being plagued by ads from Google Flights and Google Hotels the next time you plan your vacation using Google Search, under this bill, ads from companies like Expedia or United Airlines can be hit the same way by sharing that top spot.
On top of all this, the bill prohibits these major platforms from using non-human resources to support their platform – for example, what Amazon once was caught doing and what it harvested from other retailers. Companies caught following this rule, according to the bill, must pay a fine of up to 15% or 30% of the total US revenue. And if the bill makes a law, the Federal Trade Commission will make a digital marketing office It is responsible for re-establishing the practice.
Platform Competition and Opportunity
Then there is Platform Competition and Opportunity sponsored by Democratic delegation Hakeem Jeffries and Republican ambassador Ken Buck. The bill could ban any platform with “at least 50,000,000 users every month in the United States” – such as Facebook, Google. Apple or Amazon — holding more than a quarter share or competitive advantage; movements that can hinder these players taking the inheritance of competitor completely. Facebook, in particular, has been to blame for a long time copying, obtaining, or even killing competing programs using these (and others) tactics, to stay strong in the TV market.
Last December, the FTC launched a valid suit its own against the company for acquiring Instagram in 2012, and the purchase of WhatsApp back in 2014. At the time, the Commission prosecution a company that makes competitors competitive. Hopefully, the adoption of the bill would prevent the company from doing the same to its competitors (* cough * TikTok * cough *) later.
Completion of the Platform Monopolies Act
The third coin has been very difficult, just passing through 21-20 votes After several hours of discussion: Completion of the Platform Monopolies Act sponsored by Representatives of Pramila Jayapal and Lance Gooden. In short, the bill would make it illegal for a major platform – such as say, Amazon or Apple – to do so. create their businesses to eliminate “potential competition or potential” for competitors using its platform. This means that Amazon may be forced to release passwords that sell on the platform, and Apple may be forced to terminate other programs which comes pre-existing in human iPhones, such as Pages, Keynote, and Numbers.
Some have said that the bill will also encourage Apple to split its App Store business completely. The store already exists he was beaten and the arguments against what Apple cut off take into account the in-app purchases, as well as that it is the only way for people looking to download apps to their iOS device- very popular mobile OS in the United States.
All of this sounds like pretty good stuff – so where does the controversy come from? Some legal experts said so he objected that the bill could end up settling in high-tech machines and preventing them from competing with … each other. Apple has not been able to create a search engine to compete with Google under this bill, for example, and Google has to sell on YouTube, which makes the video company more complex to compete and Netflix. In other words, this bill would confuse professional giants in some ways, but give it a go a great helping hand among others.
Meanwhile, some critics have argued that the current level of legislation is very broad be helpful. In short, the bill leaves the FTC to decide which companies should be forced to start the cycle, and does not provide any direction on the line. Should Apple stop selling apps, or all of its iOS apps? What about the Apple Watch, or any other type of device? With no lines drawn in the sand, opponents number, The FTC will be left until the time comes for this bill to be passed.
Developing Competition and Competition by expanding Career Transformation Work
Then there is Developing Competition and Competition by expanding Career Transformation Work-In the ACCESS Act, supported by House Reps Mary Scanlon and Burgess Owens. The main purpose of the bill is to enable people to use platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to expose and direct where their information ends. According to the law, certain platforms must allow users to download some (or even all) of them if they choose to leave the platform, if they can connect and log in with friends and relatives who use these services. If users wish, they can also request that their data be moved to another platform. So as an example, if anyone wants to leave Facebook and taking all their data with them, under the bill, Facebook will need to find a way to allow that person to chat with their families on Messenger without restart their account. That said, the bill is not good and it is unclear whether Facebook will continue or not data collection through this new approach in the same way before.
Errors aside, the bill was still received from the likes of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, he called The ACCESS policy is an important part of “eliminating the big modern companies in terms of our data.” But this does not come without risk; as the EFF and others have pointed out, the intellectual movement between companies opens up new risks in terms of design; companies are over use bribes by any means available to us to store our data more than them do it already. This means that legislators will have to step up and look forward to the conference to make sure it is as air-free as possible.
State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act
The fifth on the list is State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act led by Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado. The bill seeks to stop leading black people from moving to courts that may appear to be industry-friendly, raising the cost of litigation. For example, Google saves to try (and failure) to move his big suit and Texas AG to his home in California — an idea that would only make it happen It’s too late going to court. If the bill had become law, Google would not have asked for this first move.
The Joint Fundraising Act
Finally, we have The Joint Fundraising Act assisted by Reps Joe Neguse and Victoria Spartz, who are meant to provide additional funding to the DoJ and FTC to be able, to enact anti-bullying laws. The fund will set aside $ 670 million to partner with the pair, and will increase the amount that big companies like Facebook and Google have to pay for big sales, such as mergers.
Putting things in perspective: In the meantime, if the contract between the two megacorps is about $ 920 million or a change of hand, they have to pay $ 280,000 in total to the FTC to do so. Under that charge, FTC fees may be charged anywhere in between $ 400,000 in sales between $ 1 billion and $ 2 billion, up to $ 800,000 in sales between $ 2 billion to $ 5 billion, and $ 2.25 million in sales of $ 5 billion and above.
Although the six debts were won and only slightly won by Congress in the war against the technicalists, the battle will not end … for a while; there are many) forcing pushing back against so much more Political conflicts sit down. Undoubtedly, if the debt ends up in the legal books at all, it could look very different by that time.
[ad_2]
Source link
