ReportWire

Tag: iab-business

  • Microsoft faces off against US government over Activision deal, with top execs set to testify | CNN Business

    Microsoft faces off against US government over Activision deal, with top execs set to testify | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Microsoft

    (MSFT)     and the video game giant Activision Blizzard

    (ATVI)     will face off Thursday against the US government in a high-stakes battle over one of the largest technology acquisitions in history.

    The showdown in federal court will have the CEOs of both companies taking the stand to defend their $69 billion merger against claims that the combination could violate US antitrust law and harm millions of consumers.

    The outcome of the fight will shape the future of the multibillion-dollar games industry. It will also impact enormously popular gaming franchises such as “Call of Duty” and “World of Warcraft,” which Activision owns and would be transferred to Microsoft under the deal.

    Also testifying will be the top financial executives from both companies; senior leaders from Microsoft’s Xbox division; the CEO of Microsoft Gaming, Phil Spencer; and a vocal critic of the deal, Sony gaming CEO Jim Ryan.

    The days-long affair begins Thursday and is scheduled to run through next week.

    In bringing the case, the Federal Trade Commission is asking a US district court judge for an injunction that would temporarily halt the deal. That would keep the companies from closing their merger, at least until the FTC’s in-house court rules in a separate proceeding on whether the acquisition is anticompetitive.

    But this week’s fight over a preliminary injunction may prove decisive for the deal as a whole. Microsoft has said that a victory for the FTC at this stage “will effectively block the transaction” overall.

    In this hearing, the FTC does not need to prove that the deal is anticompetitive. It just needs to show that the agency would be likely to succeed in doing so if the case moves ahead, and that otherwise its ability to enforce US antitrust law would be harmed.

    The clash comes as Microsoft and Activision face down a contractual July 18 deadline to consummate the deal. Failure to close, or any permanent court order to block the merger, could force Microsoft to pay a $3 billion breakup fee to Activision, according to the deal’s terms.

    The FTC lawsuit has put Microsoft under the harshest antitrust scrutiny in the US in more than two decades. It also could be a crucial test for the FTC at a time when it’s trying to rein in the tech industry broadly, with mixed success.

    In its initial challenge to the merger in its in-house court last year, the FTC alleged the deal would harm competition by turning Microsoft into the world’s third-largest video game publisher — allowing it to raise video game prices with impunity, restrict Activision titles from rival platforms and harm game quality and player experiences on consoles and gaming services.

    Some of those concerns have also been raised internationally. The UK government has challenged the acquisition, and the New Zealand government on Tuesday warned that the deal could be anticompetitive.

    Microsoft has sought to address the concerns by hammering out multi-year licensing agreements with competitors such as Nintendo and Nvidia to ensure that their platforms will continue to receive popular titles if the deal goes through.

    The company has also put forth an 11-point pledge to keep its platforms open, a commitment that applies not only to the Activision Blizzard deal but to virtually all of Microsoft’s gaming business going forward.

    Last month, Microsoft said the European Union would require it to license Activision games “automatically” to competing cloud gaming services as a condition of allowing the merger to proceed in the EU. That commitment, Microsoft said, “will apply globally and will empower millions of consumers worldwide to play these games on any device they choose.”

    Although EU regulators have said the concession addresses their concerns, officials in the US and the UK are continuing with their legal opposition to the deal.

    The standoff particularly focuses attention on FTC Chair Lina Khan, a tech industry critic who has argued for litigating difficult cases and for introducing novel legal theories to help adapt US antitrust law to the digital age.

    Khan won a significant victory last year when the FTC forced Nvidia to abandon its attempted acquisition of the chipmaker Arm. The deal would have combined two companies in adjacent industries in what is known as a vertical merger, a type of deal that is rarely blocked in the United States.

    But Khan also suffered a setback when the FTC unsuccessfully tried to block Facebook-parent Meta from acquiring Within Unlimited, a virtual reality startup. The FTC had argued that the acquisition was an attempt by Meta to quash competition in the nascent VR industry, but earlier this year, a federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction of the kind the FTC now seeks against Microsoft. The FTC dropped its case against Meta soon after.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AI is already linked to layoffs in the industry that created it | CNN Business

    AI is already linked to layoffs in the industry that created it | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Many have raised alarms about the potential for artificial intelligence to displace jobs in the years ahead, but it’s already causing upheaval in one industry where workers once seemed invincible: tech.

    A small but growing number of tech firms have cited AI as a reason for laying off workers and rethinking new hires in recent months, as Silicon Valley races to adapt to rapid advances in the technology being developed in its own backyard.

    Chegg, an education technology company, disclosed in a regulatory filing last month that it was cutting 4% of its workforce, or about 80 employees, “to better position the Company to execute against its AI strategy and to create long-term, sustainable value for its students and investors.”

    IBM CEO Arvind Krishna said in an interview with Bloomberg in May that the company expects to pause hiring for roles it thinks could be replaced with AI in the coming years. (In a subsequent interview with Barrons, however, Krishna said that he felt his earlier comments were taken out of context and stressed that “AI is going to create more jobs than it takes away.”)

    And in late April, file-storage service Dropbox said that it was cutting about 16% of its workforce, or about 500 people, also citing AI.

    In its most-recent layoffs report, outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said 3,900 people were laid off in May due to AI, marking its first time breaking out job cuts based on that factor. All of those cuts occurred in the tech sector, according to the firm.

    With these moves, Silicon Valley may not only be leading the charge in developing AI but also offering an early glimpse into how businesses may adapt to those tools. Rather than render entire skill sets obsolete overnight, as some might fear, the more immediate impact of a new crop of AI tools appears to be forcing companies to shift resources to better take advantage of the technology — and placing a premium on workers with AI expertise.

    “Over the last few months, AI has captured the world’s collective imagination, expanding the potential market for our next generation of AI-powered products more rapidly than any of us could have anticipated,” Dropbox CEO Drew Houston wrote in a note to staff announcing the job cuts. “Our next stage of growth requires a different mix of skill sets, particularly in AI and early-stage product development.”

    In response to a request for comment on how its realignment around AI is playing out, Dropbox directed CNN to its careers page, where it is currently hiring for multiple roles focused on “New AI Initiatives.”

    Dan Wang, a professor at Columbia Business School, told CNN that AI “will cause organizations to restructure,” but also doesn’t see it playing out as machines replacing humans just yet.

    “AI, as far as I see it, doesn’t necessarily replace humans, but rather enhances the work of humans,” Wang said. “I think that the kind of competition that we all should be thinking more about is that human specialists will be replaced by human specialists who can take advantage of AI tools.”

    The AI-driven tech layoffs come amid broader cuts in the industry. Many tech companies have been readjusting to an uncertain economic environment and waning levels of demand for digital services more than three years into the pandemic.

    Some 212,294 workers in the tech industry have been laid off in 2023 alone, according to data tracked by Layoffs.fyi, already surpassing the 164,709 recorded in 2022.

    But in the shadow of those mass layoffs, the tech industry has also been gripped by an AI fervor and invested heavily in AI talent and tech.

    In January, just days after Microsoft announced plans to lay off 10,000 employees as part of broader cost-cutting measures, the company also confirmed it was making a “multibillion dollar” investment into OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. And in March, in the same letter to staff Mark Zuckerberg used to announce plans to lay off another 10,000 workers (after cutting 11,000 positions last November), the Meta CEO also outlined plans for investing heavily in AI.

    Even software engineers in Silicon Valley who once seemed uniquely in demand now appear to be at risk of losing their jobs, or losing out on salary gains to those with more AI expertise.

    Roger Lee, a startup founder who has been tracking tech industry layoffs via his website Layoffs.fyi, also runs Comprehensive.io, which examines job listings and compensation data across some 3,000 tech companies.

    Lee told CNN that a recent analysis of data from Comprehensive.io shows the average salary for a senior software engineer specializing in artificial intelligence or machine learning is 12% higher than for those who don’t specialize in that area, a data point he dubs “the AI premium.” The average salary for a senior software engineer specializing in AI or machine learning has also increased by some 4% since the beginning of the year, whereas the average salary for senior software engineers as a whole has stayed flat, he said.

    Lee noted Dropbox as an example of a company offering notably high pay for AI roles, citing a base salary listing of $276,300 to $373,800 for a Principal Machine Learning Engineer role. (By comparison, Comprehensive.io’s data puts the current average salary for a senior software engineer at $171,895.)

    Those looking to thrive in the tech industry and beyond may need to brush up on their AI skills.

    Wang, the professor at Columbia Business School, told CNN that starting this past spring semester, he began requiring his students to familiarize themselves with the new crop of generative AI tools on the market. “That type of exposure I think is absolutely critical for setting themselves up for success and once they graduate,” Wang said.

    It’s not that everyone needs to become AI specialists, Wang added, but rather that workers should know how to use AI tools to become more efficient at whatever they’re doing.

    “That’s where the kind of a battleground for talent is really shifting,” Wang said, “as differentiation in terms of talent comes from creative and effective ways to integrate AI into daily tasks.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TSMC says skilled worker shortage delays start of Arizona chip production | CNN Business

    TSMC says skilled worker shortage delays start of Arizona chip production | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Shares of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co slumped more than 3% Friday after the world’s largest contract chipmaker flagged a 10% drop in 2023 sales and said production due to start next year at its first plant in Arizona would be delayed.

    On Thursday, TSMC

    (TSM)     reported a 23% fall in second-quarter net profit — its first year–on-year drop in quarterly profit since 2019 — as global economic woes take a toll on demand for chips used in everything from cars to cellphones.

    “While the company’s declining revenue and profit were disappointing, its long-term growth prospects remain encouraging,” said Brady Wang, associate director at Counterpoint Research. “Despite facing macroeconomic headwinds, TSMC’s long-term outlook remains robust, supported by mega trends like 5G and high-performance computing.”

    As TSMC steps up its global expansion, the company said production at its first plant in Arizona will be delayed until 2025 due to a shortage of specialist workers.

    “While we are working to improve the situation, including sending experienced technicians from Taiwan to train the local skilled workers for a short period of time, we expect the production schedule of N4 process technology to be pushed out to 2025,” TSMC chairman Mark Liu said Thursday.

    TSMC’s total investment in the US project amounts to $40 billion.

    The company said its position as the largest manufacturer of artificial intelligence chips and high demand for AI have not offset broader end-market weakness as the global economy recovers more slowly than it had expected.

    “The short-term frenzy about the AI demand definitely cannot extrapolate for the long term. Neither can we predict the near future — meaning next year — how the sudden demand will continue or flatten out,” Liu said.

    Still, the company’s earnings of 181.8 billion Taiwan dollars ($5.85 billion) for the quarter ending in June beat forecasts.

    “We see TSMC well-positioned for a strong growth outlook in 2024,” Goldman Sachs said in a research note. “We believe the US expansion delay is also well-expected by investors.”

    Other analysts, too, were upbeat on TSMC, thanks in part to strong demand for AI, which currently accounts for around 6% of the company’s revenue.

    “We expect a solid 2024-onward outlook on the back of its leading position in AI chip manufacturing,” Citi Research analysts said in a note.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top US general says increased partnership between Iran, Russia, and China will make them ‘problematic’ for ‘years to come’ | CNN Politics

    Top US general says increased partnership between Iran, Russia, and China will make them ‘problematic’ for ‘years to come’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers Wednesday that China, Russia, and Iran would be a problem for the US “for many years to come” as the three are working more closely together.

    Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Milley said Russia and China are “getting closer together.”

    “I wouldn’t call it a true full alliance in the real meaning of that word, but we are seeing them moving closer together, and that’s troublesome,” Milley said. “And then … Iran is the third. So those three countries together are going to be problematic for many years to come I think, especially Russia and China because of their capability.”

    While the US has made clear for years now that the three countries are focuses of the military – particularly China and Russia – tensions with all three have been on the rise in recent months and even weeks.

    The US continues to help fund Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion, which Milley said Wednesday “in and of itself is a war crime.” Tensions with China rose recently following a suspected Chinese spy balloon’s travel over the continental US. It was ultimately shot down by the US military off the eastern coast of the country; Chinese Minister of National Defense Wei Fenghe refused to take a call with Austin regarding the incident.

    And just last week, the US launched retaliatory strikes against Iran-backed groups in Syria, after a suspected Iranian drone struck a facility housing US personnel, killing an American contractor and injuring five service members. Following the US strike, additional rocket and drone attacks were carried out targeting US and coalition personnel in Syria.

    Milley warned during a hearing on Tuesday that Iran could “produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon in less than two weeks,” and ultimately create a nuclear weapon within “several months thereafter.”

    “The United States military has developed multiple options for our national leadership to consider if or when Iran decides to develop a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    But he added Wednesday that China and Russia specifically have “the means to threaten our interests and our way of life,” and mark the first time that the US is “facing two major nuclear powers.”

    And while Milley also said Wednesday that China’s nuclear capabilities are “not matched” with those of the US, he added that they are still significant.

    “We are probably not going to be able to do anything to stop, slow down, disrupt, interdict, or destroy the Chinese nuclear development program that they have projected out over the next 10 to 20 years,” Milley said. “They’re going to do that in accordance with their own plan. And there’s very little leverage, I think, that we can do externally to prevent that from happening.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House passes bill to block Biden’s student loan forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    House passes bill to block Biden’s student loan forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration’s one-time student loan forgiveness program is facing a fresh threat from House Republicans while it awaits a ruling from the Supreme Court about whether the proposal can take effect.

    The House voted Wednesday to pass a resolution seeking to block the forgiveness program as well as end the pandemic-related pause on federal student loan payments.

    Two Democrats, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, joined Republicans in voting for the bill.

    The proposed forgiveness program, which promises up to $20,000 in federal student debt relief to millions of low- and middle-income borrowers, was halted by lower courts late last year before any student debt was canceled. The pause on payments, which has been in place since March 2020, is set to end later this year.

    President Joe Biden has pledged to veto the Republican-led resolution if it passes in both the House and Senate. The administration said that the resolution would “weaken America’s middle class.”

    “The president’s plan is a good one. It’s a popular one. And it will help prevent borrowers from default when loan payments restart this summer,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre earlier Wednesday.

    But Republicans argue that the student loan forgiveness program is unlawful and shifts the cost of the debt to taxpayers who chose not to go to college or already paid off their student loans. Blocking the program could reduce the deficit by nearly $320 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    “President Biden’s so-called student loan forgiveness programs do not make the debt go away, but merely transfer the costs from student loan borrowers onto taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars,” said Rep. Bob Good, a Republican from Virginia, in a statement released when he introduced the resolution in March.

    Even though Biden has pledged to veto the bill, votes in the House and Senate could force more moderate members of the Democratic Party to take a public stance regarding the student loan forgiveness program. Some lawmakers have been critical of the proposal in the past.

    The Senate has yet to schedule a vote on the resolution, but nearly all of the 49 Republican senators have signed on as sponsors.

    Republican lawmakers introduced their joint resolution in late March, using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to roll back regulations from the executive branch without needing to clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate that is necessary for most legislation.

    If the student loan forgiveness program is allowed to move forward, individual borrowers who made less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 a year could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness.

    While the debt relief would help borrowers with student loans now, the program wouldn’t change the cost of college in the future – and some critics argue that it could even lead to an increase in tuition.

    In February, the Supreme Court heard two legal challenges to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. One was filed by six Republican-led states, and the other was brought by two student loan borrowers who did not qualify for the full benefits of the program. The individuals are backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative organization.

    The lawsuits argue that the Biden administration is abusing its power and using the Covid-19 pandemic as a pretext for fulfilling the president’s campaign pledge to cancel student debt.

    The White House has said that it received 26 million applications before a lower court in Texas put a nationwide block on the program in November, and that 16 million of those applications have been approved for relief.

    No debt has been canceled yet. But if the Supreme Court allows the program to take effect, it’s possible the government moves quickly to forgive those debts.

    If the justices strike down Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, it could be possible for the administration to make some modifications to the policy and try again – though that process could take months.

    The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in late June or early July.

    Biden has extended the pause on federal student loan payments several times. Accounts have been frozen and most federal borrowers have not been required to make a payment for more than three years.

    But the pause is set to end later this year. The Biden administration has tied the restart date to the litigation over the separate student loan forgiveness program. Payments are set to resume 60 days after the Supreme Court issues its ruling or 60 days after June 30, whichever comes first.

    But the Biden administration has also made some lesser-known but potentially longer-lasting changes to the federal student loan system.

    New rules set to take effect in July could broaden eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is aimed at helping government and nonprofit workers. And a new income-driven repayment plan proposal is meant to lower eligible borrowers’ monthly payments and reduce the amount they pay back over time. Parts of that new repayment plan are expected to go into effect later this year.

    The Department of Education has also made it easier for borrowers who were misled by their for-profit college to apply for student loan forgiveness under a program known as borrower defense to repayment, as well as for those who are permanently disabled.

    Altogether, the Biden administration has approved more than $66 billion in targeted loan relief to nearly 2.2 million borrowers.

    This headline and story have been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s what’s left for the Supreme Court’s final week of the term | CNN Politics

    Here’s what’s left for the Supreme Court’s final week of the term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story ran in early June.



    CNN
     — 

    All eyes are on the Supreme Court for its final week, as the justices will release cases on issues such as affirmative action, student loan payments, election law and LGBTQ rights.

    Of the 10 cases remaining, several that most capture the public’s attention are likely to lead to fiery opinions and dissents read from the bench.

    In addition, they will come down as the court finds itself in the center of a spotlight usually reserved for members of the political branches due to allegations that the justices are not transparent enough when it comes to their ethics disclosures, most recently with Justice Samuel Alito last week.

    Here are some of the remaining cases to be decided:

    The court is considering whether colleges and universities can continue to take race into consideration as a factor in admissions, a decision that could overturn long standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students.

    At issue are programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the schools say help them to achieve diversity on campus.

    During oral arguments, the right side of the bench appeared ready to rule against the schools. Such an opinion would deliver a long-sought victory for opponents of affirmative action in higher education who have argued for decades that taking race into consideration – even in a limited manner – thwarts the goal of achieving a color-blind society.

    John Roberts skewers Harvard attorney’s comparison of race and music skills as qualities in applicants

    At the center of another case is a graphic designer, Lorie Smith, who seeks to expand her business and create custom websites to celebrate weddings – but does not want to work with gay couples out of religious objections to same-sex marriage.

    Smith has not yet moved forward with her new business venture because of Colorado’s public accommodations law. Under the law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. Smith, whose company is called 303 Creative LLC, said that she is willing to work with all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, but she draws the line at creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriage because expressing such a message would be inconsistent with her beliefs.

    The state and supporters of LGBTQ rights say that Smith is simply seeking a license to discriminate.

    The conservatives on the court were sympathetic at oral arguments to those put forward by Smith’s lawyer. They viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs.

    Moore v. Harper has captured the nation’s attention because Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are asking the justices to adopt a long dormant legal theory and hold that state courts and other state entities have a limited role in reviewing election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections.

    The doctrine – called the Independent State Legislature theory – was pushed by conservatives and supporters of Trump after the 2020 presidential election.

    The North Carolina controversy arose after the state Supreme Court struck down the state’s 2022 congressional map as an illegal partisan gerrymander, replacing it with court-drawn maps that favored Democrats. GOP lawmakers appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court had exceeded its authority.

    They relied upon the Elections Clause of the Constitution that provides that rules governing the “manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” must be prescribed in “each state by the legislature thereof.”

    Under the independent state legislature theory, the lawmakers argued, state legislatures should be able to set rules with little to no interference from the state courts.

    The justices heard oral arguments in the case last winter and some of them appeared to express some support for a version of the doctrine. The justices could, however, ultimately dismiss the dispute due to new partisan developments in North Carolina.

    After the last election, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped its majority to Republican. In April, the newly composed state Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and held that the state constitution gives states no role to play in policing partisan gerrymandering. After that decision was issued, the justices signaled they may dismiss the case.

    exp juneteenth anita hill amanpour intw 061901PSEG2 cnn us_00002001.png

    Anita Hill: America “has lost confidence in the Supreme Court”

    The Supreme Court is also considering two challenges to President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, an initiative aimed at providing targeted debt relief to millions of student-loan borrowers that has so far been stalled by legal challenges.

    Republican-led states and conservatives challenging the program say it amounts to an unlawful attempt to erase an estimated $430 billion of federal student loan debt under the guise of the pandemic.

    At the heart of the case is the Department of Education’s authority to forgive the loans. Several of the conservative justices have signaled in recent years that agencies – with no direct accountability to the public – have become too powerful, upsetting the separation of powers.

    They have moved to cut back on the so-called administrative state.

    In court, Chief Justice John Roberts as well as some other conservatives seemed deeply skeptical of the Biden administration’s plan.

    A former mail carrier, an evangelical Christian, seeks to sue the US Postal Service because it failed to accommodate his request not to work on Sundays.

    A lower court had ruled against the worker, Gerald Groff, holding that his request would cause an “undue burden” on the USPS and lead to low morale at the workplace when other employees had to pick up his shifts.

    There appeared to be consensus, after almost two hours of oral arguments, that the appeals court had been too quick to rule against Groff.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • States have been on a tax-cutting spree, but revenues are now weakening | CNN Politics

    States have been on a tax-cutting spree, but revenues are now weakening | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Fueled by surging revenues, states have been slashing taxes for individuals and businesses for the past three years.

    But the party is expected to come to an end in the coming fiscal year, which started on Saturday in 46 states. Revenue is projected to decline by 0.7% in fiscal 2024, based on forecasts used in governors’ budgets, after an estimated 0.3% dip this fiscal year, according to a recently released National Association of State Budget Officers survey.

    This reversal comes after double-digit percentage increases for the prior two fiscal years. It reflects the impact of slower economic growth, a weaker stock market and a slew of recent tax cuts.

    Some 25 states have cut individual income tax rates since 2021, according to the right-leaning Tax Foundation. This includes 22 states that reduced their top marginal rates.

    “Most states are viewing tax reform and relief as a chance to, first and foremost, return some of their excess revenue to taxpayers, but to also do that in a way that is simultaneously improving the structure of their tax cuts and make it more conducive to long-term economic growth,” said Katherine Loughead, senior policy analyst at the foundation.

    States are also seeking to make themselves more attractive to business investment, as well as to remote and traditional workers, she continued.

    In 2023 alone, at least eight states approved rate reductions, according to the Tax Foundation. Arkansas, for instance, is trimming its top individual income tax rate to 4.7%, retroactive to January 1, after reducing it from 5.5% to 4.9% last year.

    Likewise, Montana lawmakers approved deepening cuts enacted in 2021. Starting in 2024, the top marginal income tax rate will be 5.9%, instead of 6.5% as originally planned. It was 6.9% in 2021.

    In addition, previously scheduled or triggered income tax rate reductions took effect this year in Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina, as well as for interest and dividend income in New Hampshire, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Aside from individual income tax cuts, states have also lowered the levies on purchases and for businesses over the past three years. Two states cut sales tax rates, while 13 reduced corporate income tax rates and others made additional tax changes that benefited companies.

    In 2023, Nebraska and Utah adopted corporate income tax rate reductions. The former will phase down its top rate to 3.99% in 2027, accelerating an earlier law’s timetable. If fully implemented as planned, Nebraska will slash its top marginal corporate income tax rate nearly in half over six years, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Utah also further reduced its corporate income tax rate to 4.65%, retroactive to January 1. A law passed last year had cut it to 4.85% for 2022, down from 4.95%.

    The tax cuts, along with stock market declines and the shaky economy, have taken their toll on states’ revenues, however.

    State tax revenue fell in 37 states, after adjusting for inflation, between July 2022 and May 2023, according to Lucy Dadayan, principal research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some 19 states saw declines before taking inflation into account.

    Revenue dropped nearly 12% over the period on an inflation-adjusted basis. All major sources of revenue – personal income, sales and corporate income taxes – declined, though the extent varies widely by state and source. Individual income taxes were the weakest, plummeting more than 22%.

    States are in trouble, though there won’t be an immediate crisis, she said. Much depends on factors that remain unknown, such as whether the nation will fall into a recession or whether states will face natural disasters.

    The robust revenue of recent years was “artificially boosted” by federal Covid-19 pandemic relief funds and the strong stock market in 2021, she said.

    “We knew this is temporary,” Dadayan said. “It would have been better if the states wouldn’t jump and do tax cuts and be more cautious.”

    Still, revenues in fiscal 2023 are coming in stronger than initially expected. The current estimates are outperforming earlier forecasts by 6.5%, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. Most states have also built up big reserves in their rainy day funds in recent years.

    Whether states will continue cutting taxes in the coming fiscal year will depend on what happens with revenues.

    “A lot of states have done what they can already,” Loughead said. “They will continue to look at how revenues come in and how the rates measure up. If they still are experiencing strong surpluses, I do think they might tweak those rates down even more.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The FTC should investigate OpenAI and block GPT over ‘deceptive’ behavior, AI policy group claims | CNN Business

    The FTC should investigate OpenAI and block GPT over ‘deceptive’ behavior, AI policy group claims | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    An AI policy think tank wants the US government to investigate OpenAI and its wildly popular GPT artificial intelligence product, claiming that algorithmic bias, privacy concerns and the technology’s tendency to produce sometimes inaccurate results may violate federal consumer protection law.

    The Federal Trade Commission should prohibit OpenAI from releasing future versions of GPT, the Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) said Thursday in an agency complaint, and establish new regulations for the rapidly growing AI sector.

    The complaint seeks to bring the full force of the FTC’s broad consumer protection powers to bear against what CAIDP portrayed as a Wild West of runaway experimentation in which consumers pay for the unintended consequences of AI development. And it could prove to be an early test of the US government’s appetite for directly regulating AI, as tech-skeptic officials such as FTC Chair Lina Khan have warned of the dangers of unchecked data use for commercial purposes and of novel ways that tech companies may try to entrench monopolies.

    The FTC declined to comment. OpenAI didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    “We believe that the FTC should look closely at OpenAI and GPT-4,” said Marc Rotenberg, CAIDP’s president and a longtime consumer protection advocate on technology issues.

    The complaint attacks a range of risks associated with generative artificial intelligence, which has captured the world’s attention after OpenAI’s ChatGPT — powered by an earlier version of the GPT product — was first released to the public late last year. Everyday internet users have used ChatGPT to write poetry, create software and get answers to questions, all within seconds and with surprising sophistication. Microsoft and Google have both begun to integrate that same type of AI into their search products, with Microsoft’s Bing running on the GPT technology itself.

    But the race for dominance in a seemingly new field has also produced unsettling or simply flat-out incorrect results, such as confident claims that Feb. 12, 2023 came before Dec. 16, 2022. In industry parlance, these types of mistakes are known as “AI hallucinations” — and they should be considered legally enforceable violations, CAIDP argued in its complaint.

    “Many of the problems associated with GPT-4 are often described as ‘misinformation,’ ‘hallucinations,’ or ‘fabrications.’ But for the purpose of the FTC, these outputs should best be understood as ‘deception,’” the complaint said, referring to the FTC’s broad authority to prosecute unfair or deceptive business acts or practices.

    The complaint acknowledges that OpenAI has been upfront about many of the limitations of its algorithms. For example, the white paper linked to GPT’s latest release, GPT-4, explains that the model may “produce content that is nonsensical or untruthful in relation to certain sources.” OpenAI also makes similar disclosures about the possibility that tools like GPT can lead to broad-based discrimination against minorities or other vulnerable groups.

    But in addition to arguing that those outcomes themselves may be unfair or deceptive, CAIDP also alleges that OpenAI has violated the FTC’s AI guidelines by trying to offload responsibility for those risks onto its clients who use the technology.

    The complaint alleges that OpenAI’s terms require news publishers, banks, hospitals and other institutions that deploy GPT to include a disclaimer about the limitations of artificial intelligence. That does not insulate OpenAI from liability, according to the complaint.

    Citing a March FTC advisory on chatbots, CAIDP wrote: “Recently [the] FTC stated that ‘Merely warning your customers about misuse or telling them to make disclosures is hardly sufficient to deter bad actors. Your deterrence measures should be durable, built-in features and not bug corrections or optional features that third parties can undermine via modification or removal.’”

    Artificial intelligence also stands to have vast implications for consumer privacy and cybersecurity, said CAIDP, issues that sit squarely within the FTC’s jurisdiction but that the agency has not studied in connection with GPT’s inner workings.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts | CNN Business

    Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    Reuters
     — 

    Hundreds of Google employees staged a walkout at the company’s London offices on Tuesday, following a dispute over layoffs.

    In January, Google’s parent company Alphabet announced it was laying off 12,000 employees worldwide, equivalent to 6% of its global workforce.

    The move came amid a wave of job cuts across corporate America, particularly in the tech sector, which has so far seen companies shed more than 290,000 workers since the start of the year, according to tracking site Layoffs.fyi.

    Trade union Unite, which counts hundreds of Google’s UK employees among its members, said the company had ignored concerns put forward by employees.

    “Our members are clear: Google needs to listen to its own advice of not being evil,” said Unite regional officer Matt Whaley.

    “They and Unite will not back down until Google allows workers full union representation, engages properly with the consultation process and treats its staff with the respect and dignity they deserve.”

    A Google employee attending the protest, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, told Reuters that talks between employees and management had been “extremely frustrating.”

    “It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard,” they said. “But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears.”

    Google’s senior management has been engaged in redundancy talks in many parts of Europe, in line with local employment laws.

    Last month, workers at the company’s Zurich office in Switzerland staged a similar walkout, with employee representatives claiming Google had rejected their proposals to reduce job cuts.

    “As we said on January 20, we’ve made the difficult decision to reduce our workforce by approximately 12,000 roles globally. We know this is a very challenging time for our employees,” a Google spokesperson said.

    “In the UK, we have been constructively engaging and listening to our employees through numerous meetings, and are working hard to bring them clarity and share updates as soon as we can in adherence with all UK processes and legal requirements.”

    Google employs more than 5,000 people in the United Kingdom.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Elon Musk upended Twitter and his own reputation in 6 months as CEO | CNN Business

    How Elon Musk upended Twitter and his own reputation in 6 months as CEO | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    When Elon Musk first agreed to buy Twitter, he promised to make the company “better than ever,” with greater transparency, fewer bots, a stronger business and more of what he called “free speech.”

    But six months after Musk took control of Twitter, the future of the company and the platform have never been less certain.

    After acquiring the social media platform for $44 billion in late October, Musk reportedly now values Twitter at around $20 billion — and some who track the company believe even that estimate is likely high. Musk repeatedly warned that Twitter could be at risk of filing for bankruptcy only to claim he had brought it back from the brink thanks to his slashing costs, both by laying off 80% of Twitter’s staff and allegedly by failing to pay some of its bills, according to multiple lawsuits. But it’s not clear just how and when Musk might return Twitter to growth.

    He has antagonized journalists and news outlets that have long been central to the platform’s success, overseen policy changes that threaten to make Twitter less safe or reliable, made the platform less transparent to researchers and scared away many top advertisers. Musk’s primary plan to grow Twitter’s business through an overhauled subscription strategy has resulted in much chaos but only a limited number of actual subscriptions.

    In the process, Musk has also upended his own reputation. Once known by much of the public primarily for his innovative efforts to launch rockets and build electric cars, Musk has instead spent much of the past six months in the headlines for controversial policy and feature changes at Twitter, draconian cuts to staff resulting in frequent service disruptions, and briefly banning several prominent journalists. He’s also tweeted a long list of eccentric remarks from his personal Twitter account, including sharing conspiracy theories and publicly mocking a Twitter worker with a disability who was unsure whether he’d been laid off.

    “If he had done nothing except cut costs, then Twitter would have been okay,” said Leslie Miley, a former Twitter engineering manager who started its product safety and security team and left the company in 2015. He has since held roles at Google, Microsoft and the Obama Foundation. “If you had just let everyone go, treated them with respect, and just let the service run for two years, you probably would be okay.”

    Now, though, Miley said he expects Twitter will “eventually go down the road of MySpace.”

    “It’s going to take a little bit longer … [but] I think Twitter is on its way to irrelevance,” he said, “there is no strategy to acquire or retain users because you are offering them no value.”

    Twitter, which has slashed much of its public relations team under Musk, responded to CNN’s request for comment on this story with the auto-reply from its press email that it has used for weeks: a poop emoji.

    For years, what differentiated Twitter from other social platforms was that it served as a central hub for real-time news. It was a place for ordinary people to read and even engage in conversation with celebrities, business leaders and other newsmakers.

    Many of Musk’s recent moves at the platform threaten to undermine that purpose, not to mention the larger information ecosystem — and it’s not clear the efforts will improve the company’s business.

    “Twitter has never been perfect, it had a lot of problems but it was critical global infrastructure for information that Elon Musk is now systematically, frankly, vandalizing,” former Twitter chair of global news Vivian Schiller told CNN in a recent interview.

    Most recently, Musk removed the legacy blue check marks that verified the identities of prominent users, saying he would instead make the checks available only to those who pay $8 per month for Twitter Blue in the interest of “treating everyone equally.”

    “There shouldn’t be a different standard for celebrities,” Musk said in a tweet earlier this month.

    But the move may make it easier for bad actors to impersonate high-profile people and harder for users to trust the veracity and authenticity of information on the platform. What’s more, Musk then decided to sponsor the blue checks for certain celebrities, including Stephen King and LeBron James, in effect creating exactly the “different standard” for famous users he’d professed to want to avoid.

    Now, Musk says content from verified users will be promoted on the platform, potentially making it harder for users who can’t afford a subscription, or simply don’t want to pay Musk for one, to find an audience on the platform. And the new paid verification system won’t necessarily rid the platform of bots, an issue Musk spent months railing on while trying to get out of the acquisition deal last year, according to Filippo Menczer, a computer science professor at Indiana University and director of the Observatory on Social Media.

    “You can create fake accounts and pay $8 [for a blue check] … so if you are a well-funded bad actor, you can do more damage now than you could before,” Menczer said. “And if you are a reliable source and you’re not well-funded, your information will not be as visible as before.”

    Menczer added that the result could be “less free speech, because you’re drowning out the speech of regular people [with speech] by people who either have the technical skills or the money to manipulate the system.”

    Twitter’s move to charge users of its API will also make it harder for researchers to identify and warn the platform about inauthentic activity, Menczer said, and could disrupt other positive uses of the platform that contributed to its reputation as a news hub. Weather agencies, for example, have warned that the change could make it harder for them to release automated emergency weather alerts.

    Any social network lives or dies based on its ability to retain and attract users — and there’s real reason for Twitter to be worried.

    A number of users, celebrities and media organizations have said they plan to leave Twitter over Musk’s recent policy changes — which often appear to be made on a whim without any real principles.

    NPR, BBC and CBC left Twitter after opposing a controversial new “government-funded media” label that they say was misleading. CenterLink, a global nonprofit that represents hundreds of centers providing services to LGBTQ communities, said it would no longer use Twitter after the platform removed protections for transgender users from its hateful conduct policy. And some high-profile users, such as bullying activist Monica Lewinsky, have threatened to exit the platform over the blue check change, now that they may be at greater risk of impersonation on Twitter.

    There remain few alternatives that offer similar features and scale to Twitter, but a growing list of upstart competitors has emerged since Musk’s takeover. At least one large rival, Facebook-parent Meta, has also confirmed it’s working on a service that sounds a lot like Twitter.

    “Almost everything he said he was going to do, he has screwed up in any number of ways,” Miley said. “If it weren’t so damaging to people and organizations who have depended upon the platform, it would be funny. But it’s not actually funny because it has degraded people’s ability to communicate effectively.”

    All of the chaos has made it difficult to convince advertisers, which previously made up 90% of Twitter’s revenue, to rejoin the platform, after many halted spending in the wake of Musk’s takeover over concerns about increased hate speech, as well as confusion about layoffs and the platform’s future direction.

    Just 43% of Twitter’s top 1,000 advertisers as of September — the month before Musk’s takeover — were still advertising on the platform in April, according to data from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower.

    Musk, for his part, has said that Twitter’s usage has increased since his takeover and that advertisers are steadily returning to the platform. But because he took the company private, he is not obligated to make financial disclosures and followers of the company are left to take him at his word.

    Musk built his reputation by overhauling Tesla, helping to launch a widespread shift away from gas cars to electric vehicles and growing SpaceX into a space transport juggernaut. Now, he appears to be attempting a similar overhaul at Twitter — upending the tried-and-true digital advertising business in favor of a subscription model that no other social media platform has yet been able to find large scale success with.

    “I give him some credit for trying a different business model, I think the business model based on user data is quite abusive,” said Luigi Zingales, professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, although Musk has also attempted to improve Twitter’s targeted advertising business.

    Some other tech companies have followed his lead in some places. Facebook-parent Meta copied Twitter by launching a paid verification option. And Meta, along with a number of other tech companies, have undergone multiple rounds of cost-cutting since last fall. Twitter appears to have given cover for some of these ideas, and other firms’ somewhat more principled approaches made them look better by comparison.

    For Twitter and Musk, the stakes for success are high: Musk’s relationships with banks and investors for future endeavors could hinge in part on his performance at the social media firm, which he took on billions of dollars in debt to purchase. Banks “will sit down and say, what kind of cred does this guy have? Will we find him making these shoot-from-the-lip sort of dictates that, in fact, throw our money down a hole?” said Columbia Business School management professor William Klepper.

    Any change to Musk’s reputation from his time leading Twitter could also ultimately have ripple effects for his broader business empire, causing potential investors, recruits and customers to think twice about betting on one of his companies. Tesla

    (TSLA)     shareholders recently complained to the company’s board that Musk appears “overcommitted.”

    “His reputation has been diminished significantly with Twitter … and once you lose it, it’s very difficult to recover,” Klepper said. “It would be a good opportunity for [Musk] to rethink whether or not … he’s really leadership material.”

    Musk in December pledged to step down as Twitter CEO after millions of users voted in favor of his exit in a poll he posted to the platform. But for now, he remains “Chief Twit.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lyft stock plunges nearly 15% on weaker than expected revenue forecast | CNN Business

    Lyft stock plunges nearly 15% on weaker than expected revenue forecast | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lyft may have a bumpy road ahead to recovery.

    The ride-hailing company reported revenue of $1 billion for the quarter ending in March, marking a 14% year-over-year increase and beating Wall Street estimate’s. But the company forecast weaker-than-expected revenue for the current quarter, which was enough to jitter investors.

    Shares of Lyft plunged nearly 15% in after-hours trading Thursday following the earnings results.

    The latest earnings report comes on the heels of Lyft shaking up its the C-suite and announcing plans to cut 26% of its employees as it fights for market share and profitability.

    David Risher, who previously worked at Amazon and Microsoft, recently took over as CEO of Lyft and the company’s two co-founders stepped down from their management positions at the company. Risher has been a member of the Lyft board since 2021.

    On a conference call with analysts on Thursday to discuss the results, Risher said Lyft is currently at “an inflection point” as people return to pre-pandemic social habits.

    “I am very aware of our current levels of growth and profitability are not acceptable,” Risher said on the call, his first as CEO. “I am committed to growing Lyft into a large, durable, profitable business, that our riders, drivers and shareholders love, and I look forward to keeping you informed on our progress.”

    Compared to its chief rival Uber, Lyft has so far struggled to bounce back from the pandemic’s hit to its business. While Uber diversified its business beyond ride-hailing by delivering meals and grocery items during the health crises, Lyft never did. Uber also was able to attract drivers back to the platform better than Lyft as pandemic restrictions eased in the U.S.

    Earlier this week, Uber said in its quarterly earnings report that revenue was up 29%, as demand for its rideshare and delivery services held firm despite lingering recession fears.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Verified’ Twitter accounts share fake image of ‘explosion’ near Pentagon, causing confusion | CNN Business

    ‘Verified’ Twitter accounts share fake image of ‘explosion’ near Pentagon, causing confusion | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A fake image purporting to show an explosion near the Pentagon was shared by multiple verified Twitter accounts on Monday, causing confusion and leading to a brief dip in the stock market. Local officials later confirmed no such incident had occurred.

    The image, which bears all the hallmarks of being generated by artificial intelligence, was shared by numerous verified accounts with blue check marks, including one that falsely claimed it was associated with Bloomberg News.

    “Large explosion near the Pentagon complex in Washington DC. – initial report,” the account posted, along with an image purporting to show black smoke rising near a large building.

    The account has since been suspended by Twitter. It was unclear who was behind the account or where the image originated. A spokesperson for Bloomberg News said the account is not affiliated with the news organization.

    Under owner Elon Musk, Twitter has allowed anyone to obtain a verified account in exchange for a monthly payment. As a result, Twitter verification is no longer an indicator that an account represents who it claims to represent.

    Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.

    The false reports of the explosion also made their way to air on a major Indian television network. Republic TV reported that an explosion had taken place, showing the fake image on its air and citing reports from the Russian news outlet RT. It later retracted the report when it became clear the incident had not taken place.

    “Republic had aired news of a possible explosion near the Pentagon citing a post & picture tweeted by RT,” the outlet later posted on its Twitter account. “RT has deleted the post and Republic has pulled back the newsbreak.”

    In a statement Tuesday, the RT press office said, “As with fast-paced news verification, we made the public aware of reports circulating and once provenance and veracity were ascertained, we took appropriate steps to correct the reporting.”

    In a post on the Russian social media platform VKontakte Tuesday, RT tried to make light of its apparent error.

    “Is the Pentagon on fire? Look, there’s a picture and everything. It’s not real, it’s just an AI generated image. Still, this picture managed to fool several major news outlets full of clever and attractive people, allegedly,” a post from RT read.

    In the moments after the image began circulating on Twitter, the US stock market took a noticeable dip. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell about 80 points between 10:06 a.m. and 10:10 a.m., fully recovering by 10:13 a.m. Similarly, the broader S&P 500 went from up 0.02% at 10:06 a.m. to down 0.15% at 10:09 a.m.. By 10:11 a.m., the index was positive again.

    The building in the image does not closely resemble the Pentagon and, according to experts, shows signs it may have been created using AI.

    “This image shows typical signs of being AI-synthesized: there are structural mistakes on the building and fence that you would not see if, for example, someone added smoke to an existing photo,” Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and digital forensic expert told CNN.

    The fire department in Arlington, Virginia, later responded in a tweet, stating that it and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency were “aware of a social media report circulating online about an explosion near the Pentagon. There is NO explosion or incident taking place at or near the Pentagon reservation, and there is no immediate danger or hazards to the public.”

    – CNN’s David Goldman contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Golf’s new Saudi deal presents questionable political, business and sporting realities | CNN Politics

    Golf’s new Saudi deal presents questionable political, business and sporting realities | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The PGA Tour once advertised its brightest stars with the catch phrase “These guys are good.” A better slogan might now be “These guys are even richer.”

    In a bombshell announcement so staggering that many golf fans thought it was fake at first, the venerable PGA Tour unveiled a partnership Tuesday with Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund, the financier of its sworn rival LIV Golf – a breakaway circuit that split the sport and seeded feuds among its top players.

    The deal means that the PGA Tour – built on the image of quintessentially American Arnold Palmer, who epitomized post World War II US values – will now rest atop a pile of money put up by the regime that the US blamed for the murdering and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, that was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11, 2001, attack, and that has frequently been condemned by Washington for infringing women’s rights.

    It is beyond doubt that the new reality of pro-golf will mean a better spectacle for fans since it will end the split between the two rival tours and will also fold in the DP World Tour (formerly known as the European tour) and mean the brightest stars will play one another more often.

    For many sports fans in the US and elsewhere, that’s just fine. They like to plop down on the couch and watch their favorite golfer on the back nine on Sunday or their Gulf-owned Premier League team on TV. Who can begrudge them one oasis free from bitter, tribal modern politics?

    And the deal is also undeniably a great piece of business, assuming PGA Tour players accept it. Global golfers stand to win a lot more money, various tours will be invigorated and Saudi Arabia’s government and its ruthless leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), get to be associated with one of the planet’s most prestigious year-round sporting properties. And all pending litigation between LIV Golf and the PGA Tour was also mutually ended under the new agreement.

    But for others, Tuesday’s peace deal on the links raises painful moral issues. It also exposes top PGA leaders – who had blasted golfers who defected to LIV – to accusations of hypocrisy and reflects the way modern professional sports are hostage to the highest bidders. This can only pose uncomfortable questions to fans whose values and history clash with those of distant and sometimes politically dicey entities who effectively own their teams and top stars.

    PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, for instance, had some explaining to do – not least to the tour’s players gathered at the Canadian Open this week after many tweeted that they had no advance notice of the deal. Monahan had played the 9/11 card last year at the same event, saying that two families that were close to him had lost loved ones in the worst terror attack on American soil, adding, “I would ask any player that has left, or any player that would ever consider leaving, have you ever had to apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour?”

    Now Monahan stands to be the effective supremo of global golf, save for the four majors – the sport’s most prestigious tournaments – aided by a gusher of Saudi cash.

    9/11 Families United effectively accused Monahan of using the tragedy as leverage in a business deal to reunite golf. He “co-opted the 9/11 community last year in the PGA’s unequivocal agreement that the Saudi LIV project was nothing more than sports washing of Saudi Arabia’s reputation,” the group said in a statement. “But now the PGA and Monahan appear to have become just more paid Saudi shills, taking billions of dollars to cleanse the Saudi reputation so that Americans and the world will forget how the Kingdom spent their billions of dollars before 9/11 to fund terrorism, spread their vitriolic hatred of Americans, and finance al Qaeda and the murder of our loved ones.”

    Monahan was asked about his reversal after what he said was a “heated” meeting with PGA Tour players on Tuesday.

    “I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite,” he said. “Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that’s trying to compete for the PGA TOUR and our players.”

    Major champions who jumped to the rival circuit last year like Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelson, Patrick Reed and Cam Smith might also now wonder whether their PGA tour brethren will face the same grilling over human rights that they had to endure at the time.

    One very famous golfer was delighted by the deal and seemed keen to claim some reflected credit – former President Donald Trump. The current front-runner for the 2024 GOP nomination associated himself with LIV after the PGA Tour and other golf governing bodies distanced themselves from him over his radioactive political reputation. Trump has hosted several tournaments at his courses for LIV – a circuit that sits well with his record of refusing to sever links with the Saudis over the murder of Khashoggi in 2018, reasoning that the Saudis were great customers of the US.

    “A big, beautiful, and glamorous deal for the wonderful world of golf. Congrats to all!!!” Trump wrote in block capital letters on his Truth Social platform.

    Some defenders of LIV golfers have pointed out that the players were only making a choice to prioritize personal interests over moral ones in partnering with the Saudis – a calculus that mirrored decades of US foreign policy. Indeed, President Joe Biden had called on the 2020 campaign trail for the kingdom to be treated as a “pariah” because of Khashoggi’s murder only to travel to the kingdom as president to fist-bump MBS when he needed a spike in oil price production to bring down American gas prices.

    On Tuesday, after the LIV/PGA partnership was announced, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken sat down for talks with the Crown Prince in Riyadh.

    The idea that politics and sport shouldn’t mix has always been quaint. The Olympics and the World Cup are two of the planet’s most political spectacles after all. And modern sport has long run on money as monster TV rights contracts translate into huge salaries for top soccer players, Formula One Drivers, NBA stars and the top names in other sports.

    But Tuesday’s LIV/PGA Tour agreement lays bare questions of morality so starkly precisely because of the way golf has sold itself. In a sport where players call penalties on themselves, and commentators idolize top players in whispered tones as paragons of gentlemanly conduct, patriotism and family values, the origin of the sport’s new financial lifeline is glaring.

    The PGA Tour and Saudi partnership may be the most prominent example yet of the phenomenon known as sports washing, whereby an authoritarian nation seeking to buff up its image – despite serious criticism over its political system and human rights performance – woos the world’s top sporting stars. China was accused of such an agenda with its 2008 and 2022 Summer and Winter Olympics, where attempts at political activism largely fizzled under its repressive rule. The Qatar World Cup last year was another example of a nation that used its financial muscle to present a new image to the world. Various controversies during the tournament over LGBTQ rights and the plight of workers who built the stadiums undercut global governing body FIFA’s pretensions to inclusion.

    The Saudis, Qataris and others are using their oil wealth to buy themselves a foothold among the world’s most powerful nations and to create tourism, entertainment and sporting legacies to sustain them when their reserves of carbon energy are depleted.

    This mirrors a global shift in power and especially financial muscle – from the capitals of Western Europe to new epicenters in the emerging economies of the Middle East, India and China. Soccer, like golf, is taking its share of the cash. Traditional working class football clubs knitted into their communities for decades in the UK, for example, now suddenly find themselves owned by foreign energy magnates. Premier League giant Manchester City was bought by a United Arab Emirates-led group. And Newcastle United is owned by a Saudi Arabia-led consortium, forcing fans to consider (or not) the ethical dimensions of their support for their hometown clubs. And global cricket has been transformed by the Indian Premier League, which pays lavish salaries in a shortened form of the game.

    One of the top names in soccer, Cristiano Ronaldo, is playing out the twilight of a glorious career spent at Europe’s top clubs in the up-and-coming Saudi league for a massive salary. And on Tuesday, Saudi team Al-Ittihad announced the signing of Real Madrid and French forward Karim Benzema, completing a sporting double whammy for the kingdom.

    There are as many sporting questions about the PGA Tour/LIV Golf partnership that remain unanswered. The partnership combines the Saudi Public Investment Fund’s golf-related commercial businesses and rights (including LIV Golf) with the commercial businesses and rights of the PGA Tour and DP World Tour into a new, collectively owned, for-profit entity. A spokesman for the PGA tour told CNN that the deal is not a merger.

    “After two years of disruption and distraction, this is a historic day for the game we all know and love,” Monahan said, describing a “transformational partnership” that would “benefit golf’s players, commercial and charitable partners and fans.”

    Yasir Al-Rumayyan, governor of the Saudi Public Investment Fund, told CNBC he expected the partnership to be finalized within weeks and revealed, in a stunning move, that he had told LIV figurehead and Hall of Famer Greg Norman about the deal only moments before going on air.

    LIV lured some of the PGA Tour’s top stars with massive signing bonuses and huge purses at substantially fewer events than the PGA tour, prompting the premier US circuit to unveil its own select “designated events” with upped prize money. The two sides were locked in bitter legal battles that have now been resolved.

    It remains unclear, however, what steps LIV stars will have to take to potentially be able to return to events like The Players Championship, currently hosted on the PGA tour from which they were banned.

    Then there is the question of how current PGA Tour members will respond.

    Former British Open Champion Collin Morikawa tweeted, “I love finding out morning news on Twitter.”

    The sudden announcement also did not specify what would happen to LIV tour events, which have struggled to draw a strong TV audience, beyond this season. Monahan’s announcement did hint that the new entity was committed to the new format of team events that has been introduced by LIV, to compliment golf’s traditional reliance on individual tournaments.

    The golfer with the widest smile on Tuesday was probably Mickelson. The three-time Masters champion took the most heat for deserting the PGA tour for a reported massive payday, and was one of the most outspoken supporters of LIV – a breakaway he argued was a way to revolutionize the structure of professional golf and to secure more rewards for players.

    Mickelson was also open about the reality of partnering with the Saudis, calling them “scary m*therf**kers to get involved with,” in an interview with golf journalist Alan Shipnuck that he later claimed was off the record. Shipnuck has written that he offered Mickelson no such agreement.

    On Tuesday, Mickelson simply tweeted: “Awesome day today,” with a smiley sunshine emoji.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Senators press Google, Meta and Twitter on whether their layoffs could imperil 2024 election | CNN Business

    First on CNN: Senators press Google, Meta and Twitter on whether their layoffs could imperil 2024 election | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three US senators are pressing Facebook-parent Meta, Google-parent Alphabet and Twitter about whether their layoffs may have hindered the companies’ ability to fight the spread of misinformation ahead of the 2024 elections.

    In a letter to the companies dated Tuesday, the lawmakers warned that reported staff cuts to content moderation and other teams could make it harder for the companies to fulfill their commitments to election integrity.

    “This is particularly troubling given the emerging use of artificial intelligence to mislead voters,” wrote Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Vermont Democratic Sen. Peter Welch and Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by CNN.

    Since purchasing Twitter in October, Elon Musk has slashed headcount by more than 80%, in some cases eliminating entire teams.

    Alphabet announced plans to cut roughly 12,000 workers across product areas and regions earlier this year. And Meta has previously said it would eliminate about 21,000 jobs over two rounds of layoffs, hitting across teams devoted to policy, user experience and well-being, among others.

    “We remain focused on advancing our industry-leading integrity efforts and continue to invest in teams and technologies to protect our community – including our efforts to prepare for elections around the world,” Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Meta, said in a statement to CNN about the letter.

    Alphabet and Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The pullback at those companies has coincided with a broader industry retrenchment in the face of economic headwinds. Peers such as Microsoft and Amazon have also trimmed their workforces, while others have announced hiring freezes.

    But the social media companies are coming under greater scrutiny now in part due to their role facilitating the US electoral process.

    Tuesday’s letter asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino how each company is preparing for the 2024 elections and for mis- and disinformation surrounding the campaigns.

    To illustrate their concerns, the lawmakers pointed to recent changes at Alphabet-owned YouTube to allow the sharing of false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, along with what they described as content moderation “challenges” at Twitter since the layoffs.

    The letter, which seeks responses by July 10, also asked whether the companies may hire more content moderation employees or contractors ahead of the election, and how the platforms may be specifically preparing for the rise of AI-generated deepfakes in politics.

    Already, candidates such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis appear to have used fake, AI-generated images to attack their opponents, raising questions about the risks that artificial intelligence could pose for democracy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says he’s found a new CEO for Twitter | CNN Business

    Elon Musk says he’s found a new CEO for Twitter | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Elon Musk on Thursday said he’s found a new CEO to take over Twitter, months after he first promised to step back from the role.

    The new CEO will assume the role at Twitter Inc., which recently changed its name to X Corp., in the coming weeks, Musk said. He did not provide a name.

    “Excited to announce that I’ve a new CEO for X/Twitter. She will be starting in ~6 weeks!” Musk said in a tweet.

    Musk, who has had a chaotic reign as “Chief Twit” since buying the company in October, said he will become Twitter’s executive chair and chief technology officer, overseeing product, software and system operations.

    In December, Musk ran a poll on the platform asking users whether he should step back as Twitter’s CEO, which ended with the majority of users voting in the affirmative. Musk said he would abide by the results of the poll but later backtracked, saying he would hand over the role “as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job!” In February, he reiterated that he planned to find a replacement by the end of the year.

    Musk has faced criticism for a series of policy changes at Twitter, which often came without clear justification and raised concerns about the impact on Twitter’s users.

    He has also been attempting to convince advertisers to rejoin the platform, after many fled over concerns about hateful conduct on the platform, Twitter’s mass layoffs or questions about the company’s future. At the same time, he has been trying to sell users on a new paid subscription platform that includes the ability to pay for a blue verification check mark, but appears to have limited traction so far.

    Musk — who runs or is involved in numerous other companies, including Tesla

    (TSLA)     — has also faced criticism from Tesla

    (TSLA)     shareholders concerned that he is distracted by Twitter.

    Musk recently said that Twitter is now “trending to breakeven,” after previously saying it was at risk of bankruptcy. Now, the company’s new CEO will be tasked with trying to help turn around the struggling company and help Musk recoup some of the $44 billion spent acquiring the platform.

    Even as Musk prepares to step back from the CEO role, he will likely maintain significant control over the future direction of the company. After taking over the company in October, Musk cleared out the C-Suite, dissolved the board and became both the CEO and sole director of the platform.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside the Treasury Department team monitoring early economic warning signs as default threat looms | CNN Politics

    Inside the Treasury Department team monitoring early economic warning signs as default threat looms | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Nearly five months before the US was projected to hit the debt ceiling, a small team inside the Treasury Department began alerting top officials to early effects already being felt in the US financial system.

    The cost of insuring US debt, as measured by the price of credit-default swaps, was rising – a sign that investors were beginning to view US bonds and other securities as increasingly risky.

    That early warning – and subsequent ones over the last month as the swaps pricing has surged – came out of the Treasury Department’s Markets Room and its eponymous team of nine financial analysts who are responsible for monitoring and analyzing global financial markets to inform the policy work of top Treasury Department and White House officials.

    As the US rapidly approaches a potential default date in early June, top US officials are increasingly relying on the Markets Room to monitor for signs of disruption in the financial markets.

    “In the same way that a doctor wants to understand the vital signs of a patient as they’re thinking about how to treat them, at Treasury keeping abreast of understanding the various ways in which the economy is healthy or unhealthy. And part of that is understanding the market,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told CNN in an interview.

    “So, we’re spending a lot of time with them better understanding what the costs are today, in order to make sure that we’re in a position to share that information with Congress, in order to prevent us from getting into a position where for the first time in our history, we’re unable to pay all of our obligations on time.”

    That work begins each day before dawn, when staffers take turns waking up around 3:30 a.m. ET to compile data about overnight market developments and begin making calls to contacts working in European and Asian markets.

    At around 7 a.m. ET, those data and insights land in the inboxes of top policymakers at the White House and Treasury Department.

    At 9 a.m. ET, before the US markets open, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and her senior leadership team huddle virtually with the Markets Room and other key Treasury Department aides for a briefing on the state of the financial markets and issues to watch for that day.

    “Almost every American is influenced by what’s happening around the globe and global markets either through your 401(k), or your attempt to borrow money for your small business or for your home. So, this team of individuals, every morning, provides us a briefing and an update on what’s happening around the world,” Adeyemo said.

    In recent weeks, that daily briefing has heavily focused on reverberations of the debt limit standoff, from updates on auctions of Treasury bills to market reactions and commentary from market analysts and economists.

    Much of the rest of the day is spent monitoring developments in the financial markets and fielding inquiries from top policymakers at Treasury and the White House for analysis on those developments.

    And at the end of the day, the Markets Room also helps policymakers digest the biggest developments in the financial markets with another widely read one-page memo delivered after the US markets close and before the Asian markets open.

    Beyond the Treasury Department, a White House spokesperson said the unit’s twice-daily memos are “a valuable asset” for officials at the National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers.

    “Those offices also rely on the Markets Room’s real-time updates – either in memos or meetings – when more regular monitoring is warranted,” the spokesperson said.

    Officials say the Markets Room is focused on monitoring the global economy’s recovery from the pandemic-induced recession, lingering inflation and the trajectory of the global economy.

    Albert Lee, the Markets Room director, described the unit as an early warning system on the global financial system for top US policymakers.

    In the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, the team was among the first to sound alarm bells inside the federal government about early shocks in pockets of the financial system and predicting rate cuts from the Federal Reserve.

    The team also played a critical role during the banking crisis earlier this year, tracking the sharp selloff of stock and outflows of deposit at Silicon Valley Bank that ultimately triggered the bank’s collapse.

    As the Treasury Department acted to address the second-largest bank failure in US history and prevent any spillover effects in the banking sector, top Treasury Department officials leaned on the Markets Room team to track the feedback of their policy actions.

    “It was critically important for us to understand how markets were interpreting the actions that we took that made clear to the American people that your deposits were safe,” Adeyemo said. “We were monitoring signs of distress in the banking sector.”

    With one week until the government can potentially no longer pay its bills, the US stock market is only just beginning to show signs of concern about a potential default and Treasury officials say the team is focused on tracking further reactions from the stock market as well as the Treasury securities market.

    The stock market’s reaction has, up until now, been relatively muted – especially as compared to the 17% drop the S&P 500 suffered amid the 2011 debt ceiling crisis. But Treasury officials say volatility in the securities market is already affecting the federal government, raising the cost to borrow.

    Yields on short-term Treasury securities have surged and recent auctions for securities are leaving a heftier price tag for the federal government, which Adeyemo said recently incurred $80 million in additional costs for a recent auction of Treasury bills.

    “So, the cost of borrowing has already gotten more expensive when it comes to us borrowing in the short term for the US government,” Adeyemo said. “So as the debt limit manufactured crisis goes on, and costs go up for the government, it also means that costs will go up for the American people as well.”

    Adeyemo declined to disclose what contingencies are being prepared should the US default. But when the US faced a similar standoff on the debt in 2011, Federal Reserve officials and Treasury Department officials quietly prepared a plan to prioritize payments on US debt and delay paying other government bills and obligations, like Social Security and payments to veterans, according to transcripts of a central bank meeting released in 2017.

    “The most important thing for the American people, for our country, for our credibility, not only with our creditors, but with the American people is to pay all of our bills on time. That’s what our system is built to do,” Adeyemo said. “I’ve spent a good part of a decade working here at the Treasury Department. What I can tell you is that there’s no plan that would allow us to meet all of our commitments other than Congress, raising the debt limit.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta could become even more dominant in social media with Threads | CNN Business

    Meta could become even more dominant in social media with Threads | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    In less than 48 hours, Meta’s Twitter rival Threads has surpassed 70 million sign-ups, upended the social media landscape and appears to have rattled Twitter enough that it is now threatening legal action against Meta.

    But even as users signed up for Threads in droves, with some clearly eager to flee the chaos of Elon Musk’s Twitter, the sudden success of Meta’s app could raise a new set of concerns.

    Meta has long been criticized for its market dominance, and for allegedly trying to choke off competition by copying and killing rival applications. Now, some competition experts and even some Threads users worry that if the new app’s traction continues, it may simply lead to the accumulation of even more power and dominance for Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

    “The prospect of total monopoly by Meta, yikes,” wrote one user. “It’s a real problem for society when a few dozen people and companies own every single thing so that no alternative paradigms can exist that they don’t co-opt from the cradle,” replied another.

    Twitter had always been much smaller than Meta’s platforms, but it had an outsized influence in tech, media and politics. As Twitter faltered under Musk, though, a cottage industry emerged of smaller apps trying to capture some of its magic. Now more than any of them, Meta seems best positioned to claim the crown.

    Threads’ blockbuster launch this week highlights the uncomfortable reality of the modern digital economy: To potentially beat some of the biggest players in the industry, you might have to be a giant yourself.

    The overnight success of Threads is a testament both to the dissatisfaction with Musk’s ownership of Twitter and to the unique power and reach of one of Meta’s most important properties: Instagram.

    Instagram has more than two billion users, far more than the 238 million users Twitter reported having in the months before Musk took over. When new users sign up for Threads, which they do using an Instagram account, the app prompts them to follow all of their existing Instagram contacts with a single tap. It’s optional, but is easy to accept, and it takes a conscious decision to decline.

    By promoting Threads through Instagram, and by sharing Instagram user data with Threads to let people instantly recreate their social networks, Meta has significantly greased the onboarding process. That frictionless experience has allowed Threads to leapfrog what’s known in the industry as the “cold start” problem, in which a new platform struggles to gain new users because there are no other users there to attract them.

    Thanks to the Instagram integration, “that biggest problem, the chicken-egg problem, has been solved from the jump,” Reddit co-founder and venture investor Alexis Ohanian said in a video Thursday (posted, naturally, on Threads).

    That Threads appeared to clear that hurdle easily, Ohanian said, makes him “bullish” on the new app.

    But that same innovation that made signing up so many users so quickly may raise competition concerns, particularly in Europe where new antitrust rules for digital platforms are set to go into effect in a matter of months.

    “From a competition perspective this can be problematic because Meta can use it to leverage its market power and raise barriers to entry, as other rivals would not have the customer base Meta has via Instagram,” said Agustin Reyna, director of legal and economic affairs at the Brussels-based consumer advocacy organization BEUC.

    Under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), “digital gatekeepers” — a term that’s expected to cover Meta and/or its subsidiaries — will be prohibited from combining a user’s data from multiple platforms without consent, Reyna said. Another restriction forbids requiring users to sign up for one platform as a condition of using another.

    Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri appeared to acknowledge those issues this week in an interview with The Verge. Threads won’t be launching in the EU for now, he said, because of “complexities with complying with some of the laws coming into effect next year” — a statement The Verge suggested was a reference to the DMA.

    The DMA was passed specifically to deal with the antitrust concerns raised by large tech platforms. That Threads apparently cannot (yet) comply with rules designed to protect competition underscores uncertainty about the app’s potential competitive impact.

    Meta’s approach to Threads could also revive longstanding criticisms about the company’s alleged practice of copying and killing rivals, particularly as Twitter has warned Meta it may sue over claims of trade secret theft (an allegation Meta denies).

    The issue isn’t limited to the realm of social media. As the world races to develop artificial intelligence, Threads represents a huge new opportunity for Meta to gather training data for its own AI technology, in a way that could help it catch up to industry leaders such as OpenAI and Google. That could complicate any attempt at a comprehensive analysis of what Threads means for competition in tech.

    Part of what makes the debate so complicated is Threads’ seemingly very real threat to Twitter.

    If Threads puts pressure on Twitter to improve its service, that is a form of competition between apps, said Geoffrey Manne, founder of the Portland, Oregon-based International Center for Law and Economics.

    But, he added, if it leads to a concentration of power in the social media industry more broadly, it could mean a reduction in competition overall. It all depends on how you define the market.

    “I’m inclined to say it does both simultaneously, and the ultimate consequences aren’t so clear,” Manne said.

    Rather than viewing it through the lens of a social media market, one helpful way to look at the issue is from the perspective of the advertising market, he said. It’s possible that once Threads introduces advertising — which Zuckerberg has said won’t happen until the app has increased to significant scale — Threads simply reinforces Meta’s advertising market power, Manne said. That could lead to further antitrust scrutiny for Meta even if the question about competition in social media is ambiguous.

    Jeff Blattner, a former DOJ antitrust official, said it can only benefit consumers to have Threads as a rival to Twitter.

    “Two platforms run by maniac billionaires are better than one,” he wrote on Threads — though if Threads is so successful as to effectively knock out Twitter altogether, then in some ways the original question about Meta’s dominance will still stand.

    Threads has one thing going for it that may nip any competition concerns in the bud: A commitment to integrate with the same open protocols used by other distributed social media alternatives, such as Mastodon.

    That would give users the option to migrate their accounts, along with all their follower data intact, to a rival like Mastodon that isn’t controlled by Meta.

    While that interoperability isn’t available yet, Mosseri has repeatedly highlighted it as a priority on his to-do list.

    When and if it happens, that could be a significant step. What may appear now as an audience grab by Meta could someday wind up being how millions of people were onboarded to a massive, decentralized social networking infrastructure that is not controlled by any single company, individual or organization.

    “This is why we think interoperability requirements are so important,” said Charlotte Slaiman, a competition expert at the Washington-based consumer group Public Knowledge. If users could port their entire social graph from one rival to another whenever they wanted, she said, “we could have more fair competition based on the quality of the product, not just incumbency advantage.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk rebrands Twitter as X | CNN Business

    Elon Musk rebrands Twitter as X | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    In a radical rebranding, Twitter owner Elon Musk has replaced Twitter’s iconic bird logo with X.

    Musk made the shock announcement of his plans early Sunday. By Monday morning US time, he tweeted that X.com now points to Twitter.com.

    “Interim X logo goes live later today,” he wrote, shortly before sharing a photo of Twitter’s headquarters lit up by a giant new X.

    The Twitter website now features the same logo, while the familiar blue bird is gone.

    Previously, Musk said he was bidding “adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.”

    Twitter

    (TWTR)    , founded in 2006, has used its vivid, globally recognized blue bird emblem for more than a decade.

    The renaming could be seen as something of a brand overhaul “Hail Mary” for the company: Musk in recent months has repeatedly warned that Twitter, facing steep losses in ad revenue, was on the edge of bankruptcy.

    Increasing the pressure, earlier this month rival social media platform Threads launched from Facebook

    (FB)     parent Meta. It surpassed 100 million user sign-ups in its first week.

    Twitter had 238 million active users prior to being taken private by Musk in October 2022.

    One of the world’s richest men, Musk was once best known for his innovative efforts through companies SpaceX and Tesla

    (TSLA)     to launch rockets and build electric cars.

    Now, many of the headlines he makes are for his eccentric remarks on his personal Twitter account – often sharing conspiracy theories and getting into public spats on the social media platform.

    Musk overhauled the site after acquiring it for $44 billion in late October, then followed with mass layoffs, disputes over millions of dollars allegedly owed in severance and Musk’s note to employees that remaining at the company would mean “working long hours at high intensity.” He wrote: “Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.”

    The upheaval prompted organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, Free Press and GLAAD, to pressure brands to rethink advertising on Twitter.

    The groups pointed to the mass layoffs as a key factor in their thinking, citing fears that Musk’s cuts would make Twitter’s election-integrity policies effectively unenforceable, even if they technically remain active.

    Musk also began overseeing controversial policy changes which led to frequent service disruptions at Twitter and upended his own reputation in the process.

    In June, Musk named Linda Yaccarino, a former NBCUniversal marketing executive, CEO of the company.

    She commented on the name change on Twitter Sunday afternoon: “It’s an exceptionally rare thing – in life or in business – that you get a second chance to make another big impression. Twitter made one massive impression and changed the way we communicate. Now, X will go further, transforming the global town square.”

    As the new venture begins, it faces challenges. Musk recently disclosed that the platform still has a negative cash flow due to a 50% drop in advertising revenue and heavy debt loads.

    Criticizing the exit, or pause, of such Twitter advertisers as General Mills

    (GIS)    , Macy’s

    (M)     and some car companies that compete with Tesla, Musk has called himself a “free speech absolutist” and said he wanted to buy Twitter to bolster users’ ability to speak freely on the platform.

    Musk explained his approach to free speech by saying: “Is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? And if that is the case, then we have free speech.”

    He added that Twitter would “be very reluctant to delete things” and that the platform would aim to allow all legal speech. Many users have worried that could mean a rise in hate speech.

    Meanwhile, the initial frenzy around rival Threads appears to have come back to earth, especially as it has been plagued with spam and lacks several user-friendly features Twitter, or, now X, offers.

    Adam Mosseri, who is overseeing the Threads launch for Meta, has hinted at plans to add features such as a desktop version of the app, a feed of only accounts a user follows and an edit button.

    Its ability to draw advertising support is, as yet, unproven.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Samsung to cut chip production after posting lowest profit in 14 years | CNN Business

    Samsung to cut chip production after posting lowest profit in 14 years | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Seoul
    Reuters
     — 

    Samsung Electronics said on Friday it would make a “meaningful” cut to chip production after flagging a worse-than-expected 96% plunge in quarterly operating profit, as a sharp downturn in the global semiconductor market worsens.

    Shares in the world’s largest memory chip and TV maker rose 3% in early trading, while rival SK Hynix shares surged 5% as investors welcomed plans to cut production to help preserve pricing power.

    Samsung

    (SSNLF)     estimated its operating profit fell to 600 billion won ($455.5 million) in January-March, from 14.12 trillion won a year earlier, in a short preliminary earnings statement. It was the lowest profit for any quarter in 14 years.

    “Memory demand dropped sharply … due to the macroeconomic situation and slowing customer purchasing sentiment, as many customers continue to adjust their inventories for financial purposes,” it said in the statement.

    “We are lowering the production of memory chips by a meaningful level, especially that of products with supply secured,” it added, in a reference to those with sufficient inventories.

    The production cut signal is unusually strong for Samsung, which previously said it would make small adjustments like pauses for refurbishing production lines but not a full-blown cut.

    It did not disclose the size of the planned cut.

    The first-quarter profit fell short of a 873 billion won Refinitiv SmartEstimate, weighted toward analysts who are more consistently accurate. Multiple estimates were revised down earlier this week.

    It was the lowest since a 590 billion won profit in the first quarter of 2009, according to company data.

    With consumer demand for tech devices sluggish due to rising inflation, semiconductor buyers including data center operators and smartphone and personal computer makers are refraining from new chip purchases and using up inventories.

    Analysts estimated the chip division sustained quarterly losses of more than 4 trillion won ($3.03 billion) as memory chip prices fell and its inventory values were slashed.

    This would be the chip business’ first quarterly loss since the first quarter of 2009, a major divergence for what is normally a cash cow that generates about half of Samsung’s profits in better years.

    Revenue likely fell 19% from the same period a year earlier to 63 trillion won, Samsung said.

    The company is due to release detailed earnings, including divisional breakdowns, later this month.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta’s business groups cut in latest round of layoffs | CNN Business

    Meta’s business groups cut in latest round of layoffs | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Facebook-parent Meta on Wednesday began cutting employees in its business groups as part of a previously announced round of layoffs, according to social media posts from impacted workers.

    Meta employees in operations, project management, marketing, policy, communications and risk analytics announced on LinkedIn Wednesday morning that they had been laid off.

    The company declined to confirm the reductions were underway, but a Meta spokesperson pointed CNN to the March blog post from CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing that the company would cut 10,000 employees this year, and that affected members of the business groups would be notified this month.

    Zuckerberg previously said the business groups would be the third and final major round of those layoffs. Laid off members of Meta’s technology and recruiting teams were notified in the past two months. Some smaller reductions may continue through the end of 2023, Zuckerberg said in March.

    The 10,000 job reductions mark the second significant wave of layoffs at Meta in recent months. The company said in November that it was eliminating approximately 13% of its workforce, or 11,000 jobs, in the single largest round of cuts in its history.

    In September, Meta reported a headcount of 87,314, per a securities filing. With the 11,000 job cuts announced in November and the 10,000 announced in March, Meta’s headcount will fall to around 66,000 — a total reduction of about 25% — assuming no additional hiring.

    Meta has said the layoffs are part of its “year of efficiency,” as the company attempts to recover from repeated revenue declines, heightened competition, concerns about user growth and big losses in its Reality Labs division amid its pivot to building the so-called metaverse. Zuckerberg has also taken responsibility for over-hiring earlier in the pandemic, when there was strong demand for the company’s products and online advertising, which dropped off somewhat once the world reopened.

    The turnaround strategy is showing early signs of success. Meta’s stock jumped last month after the company posted a 3% year-over-year revenue increase for the first three months of 2023, reversing a trend of three consecutive quarters of revenue declines. Still, profits declined by nearly a quarter compared to the same period in the prior year, and price per advertisement — an indicator of the health of the company’s core digital ad business — also decreased by 17% from the year prior.

    Zuckerberg said on an earnings call with analysts last month that when Meta started its “efficiency work” late last year, “our business wasn’t performing as well as I wanted, but now we’re increasingly doing this work from a position of strength.”

    But left in its wake are the thousands of employees affected by layoffs.

    “Finding work you care about and believe in and the right people to be in the trenches with is an incredible dream; it also makes moments like this incredibly difficult,” one employee affected by Wednesday’s layoffs said in a LinkedIn post. The employee called the cuts a “shock to the system.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link