Connect with us

Published

on

Anytime there’s a bipartisan consensus and a preachy New York Times op-ed, you can assume something you enjoy is about to get regulated out of existence or made worse in quality.

“Giant digital platforms have provided new avenues of proliferation for the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, human trafficking, drug trafficking and bullying and have promoted eating disorders, addictive behaviors and teen suicide,” write Sens. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) and Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) in today’sNew York Times. “Nobody elected Big Tech executives to govern anything, let alone the entire digital world,” so the senators are introducing a bill to create a new regulatory agency that will fix the problem.

What follows is a litany of untrue statements and gross exaggerations about the way Big Tech operates and the purported harm done by the cluster of websites that millions of Americans willingly use on a daily basis.

“Platforms are protected from legal liability in many of their decisions, so they operate without accountability,” Warren and Graham claim. This refers to Section 230, sometimes called the internet’s First Amendment, which was adopted in 1996 as a means of protecting platforms from being held liable for the content their users post (and without which platforms might choose not to host much speech at all). It also “ensured online platforms’ ability to regulate posts that violate their terms of service,” per First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere. Warren and Graham seem to think that somehow politicians and regulators would be better at determining which speech is permissible on different platforms.

“Google uses its search engine togive preference to its own products, like Google Hotels and Google Flights, giving it an unfair leg up on competitors,” they continue. “Amazon sucks up information from small businesses that offer products for sale on its platform, then uses that information to run its own competing businesses.”

“Appleforces entrepreneurs (and thereby consumers) to pay crushing commissions to use its App Store,” even.

But they fail to argue for how consumers are made worse off by these purportedly destructive tactics. Google Flights makes travel planning far easier than the days before search. No person is prevented from going directly to an individual airline’s website to book their flight if they prefer. Amazon has increasingly started developing Basics, its generic brand of commonly purchased household goods (just as Target has Target Brand products on offer); if someone needs a phone charger, they can get it more cheaply and quickly than ever before. As for Apple, of course other app developers must pay to place their products in the company’s digital storefront; how nice that customers have access to products made by developers other than those at Apple!

“A few Big Tech companies stifle all competition before it poses any serious threat,” the senators claim, ignoring that we’re in an era where previously indomitable companies are crumbling before our eyes: Meta’s Facebook is shedding daily active users (TikToka competitorhas long been on the rise) and Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse augmented reality pet project has struggled to get off the ground; Twitter’s U.S. ad sales are plummeting and traffic has declined each month since January (some users may be migrating to Meta-run competitor Threads, others to censorship-resistant protocols like Nostr). Hulu and YouTube are seeing drop-offs in weekly users (and some industry watchers are even noting a broader decline in the amount of time Americans spend on screens, post-pandemic).

But Big Tech companies are predatory, sucking up our data, claim Warren and Graham. Never mind the fact that we’re not forced to use them, and that it’s unclear what harm is actually done by them accessing our data. Most people, for example, aren’t privacy hawks interested in setting up two-factor authentification, using only encrypted messaging, opting out of any governmental use of their biometric information, and the like, and just express vague concerns about data and algorithms, without any specific complaint as to how their life is made worse because of Meta knowing their birthdate.

Warren and Graham go on to announce they’re introducing legislation to create an “independent, bipartisan regulator charged with licensing and policing the nation’s biggest tech companies” which will be “nimble” and “adaptable” (just like all those other government agencies). The regulator will “prevent online harm” (by waving a magic wand and ensuring no bad actors ever go online); “promote free speech and competition” (by scrapping Section 230 and cracking down on mergers instead of trusting the existing process through which companies have cycled in and out of dominance); “guard Americans’ privacy” (because government agencies do a great job at cybersecurity!); all while “protect[ing] national security” (it is unclear how banning Google Hotels will safeguard the homeland).

Contra Warren and Graham’s implications, it’s not easy to predict which new companies will emerge from the ashes of our discards. It’s not clear that the existing landscape is detrimental to consumers (again, who use these products willingly) or immune from competition. Will Threads be successful? Will Elon Musk drive Twitter into the ground? Will the future be Substack? Patreon? X? More group messaging and less interest in expansive social networks? Are people losing interest in streaming, in favor of shorter-form content like Reels? Will Amazon’s grocery delivery business succeed? Will its movie studios? Maybe neither, and it will actually be a health care industry disruptor, offering cheaper pharmaceuticals than ever before. And why is it that Microsoftthe still-massive company under investigation right now in the E.U., and the target of much 1990s antitrust ireis so infrequently mentioned today?

Warren and Graham have indeed reached a bipartisan consensus: They sell short the good done by these large companies, exaggerate the harms, and display the type of extraordinary hubris that commonly emanates from government officials.

Continue Reading

Sports

Shocks at No. 1 — and No. 2?! Winners, losers and takeaways from MLB draft Day 1

Published

on

By

Shocks at No. 1 -- and No. 2?! Winners, losers and takeaways from MLB draft Day 1

The first day of the 2025 MLB draft is complete! The Washington Nationals selected Eli Willits with the No. 1 pick, opting for the prep shortstop — who might be more likely to sign below slot — in a draft with no clear-cut top prospect. And there were plenty of other intriguing selections as the first three rounds unfolded Sunday night.

The Seattle Mariners had to have been thrilled to have Kiley McDaniel’s No. 1-ranked prospect, Kade Anderson, fall to them at No. 3, and Ethan Holliday was selected at No. 4 by his famous father’s former squad the Colorado Rockies.

We asked ESPN baseball insiders Alden Gonzalez, Jesse Rogers and David Schoenfield to break down their favorite and most head-scratching moves of the draft’s first night, as well as to predict which players will bring the most to their new teams in the long term.


A lot of us were thrown for a loop by the first two selections. What do you make of the Nationals taking Ethan Willits at No. 1 and the Angels picking Tyler Bremner at No. 2?

Gonzalez: I was stunned on both accounts. Though there was definitely some uncertainty around the Nationals’ approach, especially since the firing of GM Mike Rizzo, I didn’t see anybody, anywhere, projecting Willits to be their choice at No. 1 overall. But the Angels drafting Bremner was an even bigger risk. Kiley had him 18th in his latest ranking. Six pitchers were ranked ahead of him. But Bremner might be someone who can rise and impact their major league roster quickly, and the Angels are always looking for that.

Rogers: The first two picks really summed up the uncertainty of the entire draft. The Nationals’ faith in a 17-year-old will be tested over the coming years, but the pick will likely save them some money for later in this draft and give Willits time to grow. The same can be said of many of the top picks: They’re going to need time. There are far fewer sure things this year — though Bremner could be the exception. The Angles love to graduate their players quickly, and as a college arm, he could see the majors sooner rather than later. Like Willits, this could also be a cost-saving move for later spending.

Schoenfield: In a draft that not only lacked a sure-thing No. 1 overall pick but was viewed as weaker at the top than those of recent years, it’s perhaps not a huge surprise that the Nationals and Angels used their picks to strike likely underslot deals with Willits and Bremner, giving them money to spend later in the draft — which they can use on high school prospects who might have slipped, trying to buy them out from going to college. It’s a strategy teams have used with success over the years, so the drafts for the Nationals and Angels will have to be viewed in their totality and not just focused on these two players.


What was your favorite pick of the night — and which one had you scratching your head?

Gonzalez: The Rockies have done a lot of things wrong over these last few … uh, decades. But it was really cool to see them take Ethan Holliday at No. 4 after his father, Matt, starred in Colorado for so long. Outside of the top two picks, Ethan Conrad going 17th to the Cubs was my biggest surprise of the night. Kiley had him ranked 30th; others had him falling out of the first round entirely. There’s uncertainty coming off shoulder surgery. But Conrad, 21, put up a 1.238 OPS in 97 plate appearances before his season ended prematurely in March. And the dearth of college bats probably influenced a slight reach here.

Rogers: I’m loving Billy Carlson to the White Sox at No. 10. Though they lost 121 games last season, Chicago couldn’t pick higher than this spot per CBA rules — but the Sox might have gotten a top-five player. Carlson’s defense will play extremely well behind a sneaky good and young pitching staff that should keep the ball on the ground in the long term. Meanwhile, with the pick of the litter when it came to hitters — college outfielders and high school kids as well — the Pirates took a high school pitcher at No. 6. Seth Hernandez could be great, but they need hitting. A lot of it.

Schoenfield: The Mariners reportedly wanted LSU left-hander Kade Anderson all along, but they certainly couldn’t have been expecting to get him with the third pick. (Keep in mind that the Mariners were lucky in the first place to land the third pick in the lottery, so they added some good fortune on top of good luck.) They get the most polished college pitcher in the draft, one who should move quickly — and perhaps make it a little easier for Jerry Dipoto to dip into his farm system and upgrade the big league roster at the trade deadline. Even though I understand why the Angels did it, Bremner still seems a little questionable. With the second pick, you want to go for a home run, and the consensus is that Holliday or even Anderson is more likely to be a more impactful major leaguer. Bremner’s lack of a third plus pitch is an issue, and you have to wonder if the Angels are relying too much on his control — which, yes, should allow him to get to the majors — and ignoring the possible lack of upside.


Who is the one player you’d like to plant your flag on as the biggest steal of this draft?

Gonzalez: Seth Hernandez, who went sixth to the Pirates and should someday share a rotation with Paul Skenes and Jared Jones. High school pitchers are incredibly risky, especially when taken so early in the draft. But Hernandez is a great athlete who already throws hard, boasts a plus changeup and showed improvement with his breaking ball this spring. He’ll go the Hunter Greene route, from standout high school pitcher to major league ace.

Rogers: Jamie Arnold will look like a steal at No. 11, especially when he debuts in the majors well before many of the players taken around him. I’m not worried about the innings drop in 2025 — not when he was striking out 119 hitters and walking just 27. The A’s need to polish him up but will be pleased by how consistent he’ll be. You can’t go wrong with a college lefty from an ACC school — at least, the A’s didn’t.

Schoenfield: I’m going with Billy Carlson with the 10th pick — with the admitted caveat that the White Sox haven’t exactly been stellar at developing hitters. But Carlson looks like an elite defensive shortstop with plus power, and that alone can make him a valuable major leaguer. If the hit tool comes along, we’re looking at a potential star. OK, he’s Bobby Witt Jr. lite? That’s still an All-Star player.


What’s your biggest takeaway from Day 1 of this draft?

Gonzalez: The Nationals throwing a wrench into the proceedings by selecting Willits. It was a surprising choice, but in their minds an easy one. Interim general manager Mike DeBartolo called Willits the best hitter and best fielder available. And in a draft devoid of can’t-miss, high-impact talent, Willits is no doubt a solid pick — a polished hitter who should stick at shortstop and might consistently hit 20 homers and steal 20 bases at a premium position. He also might come under slot, allowing flexibility later in the draft. But his selection is what allowed Anderson to reach the Mariners at No. 3 and prompted the Rockies to draft Holliday at No. 4, among other dominoes. It set a really interesting tone.

Rogers: Things change quickly in baseball. Whereas college hitters are usually the safest bets early in the draft, this year high school position players dominated. (And they all play shortstop, at least for now.) Athleticism has returned to baseball, and draft rooms are acting accordingly.

Schoenfield: I’m agreeing with Jesse. The selection of that many prep shortstops stood out — and they all seem to hit left-handed and run well, and some of them have big power potential and a cannon for an arm. Look, the hit tool is the most important and the hardest to scout and project, so not all these kids are going to make it, but their potential is exciting and, to Jesse’s point, their wide range of tools is showing that baseball is still drawing top athletes to the sport.

Continue Reading

Business

Economists say the cost of living crisis is over – here’s why many households disagree

Published

on

By

Economists say the cost of living crisis is over - here's why many households disagree

Talk to economists and they will tell you that the cost of living crisis is over.

They will point towards charts showing that while inflation is still above the Bank of England’s 2% target, it has come down considerably in recent years, and is now “only” hovering between 3% and 4%.

So why does the cost of living still feel like such a pressing issue for so many households? The short answer is because, depending on how you define it, it never ended.

Economists like to focus on the change in prices over the past year, and certainly on that measure inflation is down sharply, from double-digit levels in recent years.

But if you look over the past four years then the rate of change is at its highest since the early 1990s.

But even that understates the complexity of economic circumstances facing households around the country.

For if you want a sense of how current financial conditions really feel in people’s pockets, you really ought to offset inflation against wages, and then also take account of the impact of taxes.

More on Cost Of Living

That is a complex exercise – in part because no two households’ experience is alike.

But recent research from the Resolution Foundation illustrates some of the dynamics going on beneath the surface, and underlines that for many households the cost of living crisis is still very real indeed.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK inflation slows to 3.4%

The place to begin here is to recall that perhaps the best measure of economic “feelgood factor” is to subtract inflation and taxes from people’s nominal pay.

You end up with a statistic showing your real household disposable income.

Consider the projected pattern over the coming years. For a household earning £50,000, earnings are expected to increase by 10% between 2024/25 and 2027/28.

Subtract inflation projected over that period and all of a sudden that 10% drops to 2.5%.

Now subtract the real increase in payments of National Insurance and taxes and it’s down to 0.2%.

Now subtract projected council tax increases and all of a sudden what began as a 10% increase is actually a 0.1% decrease.

Read more:
UK economy figures ‘not as bad as they look’, analysts say
More options than ever for savers to beat inflation

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will we see tax rises in next budget?

Of course, the degree of change in your circumstances can differ depending on all sorts of factors. Some earners (especially those close to tax thresholds, which in this case includes those on £50,000) feel the impact of tax changes more than others.

Pensioners and those who own their homes outright benefit from a comparatively lower increase in housing costs in the coming years than those paying mortgages and (especially) rent.

Nor is everyone’s experience of inflation the same. In general, lower-income households pay considerably more of their earnings on essentials, like housing costs, food and energy. Some of those costs are going up rapidly – indeed, the UK faces higher power costs than any other developed economy.

But the ultimate verdict provides some clear patterns. Pensioners can expect further increases in their take-home pay in the coming years. Those who own their homes outright and with mortgages can likely expect earnings to outpace extra costs. But others are less fortunate. Those who rent their homes privately are projected to see sharp falls in their household income – and children are likely to see further falls in their economic welfare too.

Continue Reading

Environment

E-quipment highlight: Perkins TracStar battery electric power unit

Published

on

By

E-quipment highlight: Perkins TracStar battery electric power unit

The off-highway equipment experts at Perkins and McElroy have teamed up to develop a plug-and-play battery electric power unit designed to help equipment OEMs and upfitters to seamlessly transition from diesel to battery electric power.

Designed to occupy the same space as the companies’ diesel-engined power units, Perkins dropped its new battery power unit into the similarly new McElroy TracStar 900i pipe fusion machine (specialized equipment used to join thermoplastic pipes like HDPE or polypropylene by heat-welding them end-to-end to form a continuous length pf pipe).

Perkins’ battery electric power unit replaces the company’s proprietary 134 hp, 3.6 liter 904 Series Tier V diesel engine, enabling units that are already deployed to be quickly upgraded to electric power – and helping trade allies and development partners to easily retrofit existing equipment in order to add zero-emission options to their operational fleet.

“We’re actively helping customers navigate the shift in power system requirements, with a range of advanced power systems including electric, diesel-electric and alternative fuel compatible engines,” says Jaz Gill, vice president, global sales, marketing at Perkins. “When it comes to the innovative fully integrated battery electric power unit, it can be ‘dropped in’ to a machine to replace a diesel engine. The system consists of a Perkins battery along with inverters, motors and on-board chargers – all packaged up into a compact drop-in system to support seamless transition from diesel to electric for our customers looking to make that move.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

McElroy believes that an electric, emissions-free power unit like this one will open new opportunities and applications for its customers.

“Their team has done a phenomenal job of integrating their battery electric system into our TracStar 900i,” explains McElroy President and CEO Chip McElroy. “We’re really excited to see what the market thinks about this concept.”

Development of the battery electric powered pipe fusion machine was completed in about nine months. Future Perkins-powered electric equipment running the 904 diesel (small excavators, telehandlers, pumps, and gensets) could be developed even more quickly. You can find out more in the company’s promo video, below.

Perkins electric power unit


SOURCE | IMAGES: McElroy, Perkins.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending