The political TikToks in your feed might be ads in disguise

There is a lot of political content on TikTok. Much of it has the spontaneous, home-made look of other TikTok content. But looks can be deceiving. Some political TikToks are financed by political influence organizations like Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, and, worse, they often give no indication that they are, in essence, paid political ads. That’s the troubling finding of a new study by researchers at Mozilla. “What we found was evidence of paid or material relationships between political influencer influencers on TikTok and political organizations in the U.S. across both sides of the (political) spectrum,” said Mozilla researcher Becca Ricks, who co-authored the report. Mozilla is now calling on TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, to be more transparent about which short videos on its app are posted by influencers receiving funds from political groups. On Thursday, the nonprofit launched a public petition urging TikTok to prioritize ad transparency. “[W]e looked into the metadata of posts on TikTok and found that TikTok does not seem to be monitoring these posts and considering them as advertising,” Geurkink says. Mozilla found more than a dozen TikTok influencers across the political spectrum that have undisclosed paid relationships—or “dark money” arrangements—with various political organizations in the U.S. TikTok has managed to stay mostly out of the discussion of the social media mis/disinformation crisis by proclaiming that it would not sell political ads on its platform. But, Mozilla points out, even though TikTok doesn’t sell political ads via its social platform (as Facebook does), it’s still easy for political organizations to form direct financial arrangements with TikTok influencers to spread a certain point of view Read More …

How two Southeast Asian superapps beat Uber at its own game

In 2009, while Uber’s cofounders were gearing up to launch, a cadre of young Asian entrepreneurs-to-be entered the MBA program at Harvard Business School. Out of that group came two ride-sharing startups that would evolve quite differently than their American cousins. The company now called Grab was conceived by Malaysian students Anthony Tan and Hooi Ling Tan (no relation) as their entry in a business-plan contest. They didn’t win—but later, they wound up out-Ubering Uber in burgeoning cities across the 10-country ASEAN region in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, another classmate took a zigzag route to the top. Nadiem Makarim, working remotely with buddies back home in Indonesia, started Gojek as a side project while finishing his MBA. This ride-share app has branched into businesses from massage therapy to moviemaking. And just this week Gojek announced the largest business deal in Indonesia’s history, its merger with e-commerce giant Tokopedia. (Disclosure: Golden Gate Ventures is a small shareholder of Gojek via its acquisition of Ruma Mapan. We’ve also invested in Gojek’s spinout, GoPlay.) Both Gojek and Grab are now venture-funded decacorns. Each is headed for a dual IPO on New York and Asian exchanges. And they’re racing to dominate much more than ride-hailing on Southeast Asians’ mobile phone screens. Grab and Gojek each offer what hasn’t yet been seen in the U.S. market: a superapp combo, featuring a payment app that’s a potential gateway to selling anything people may wish to buy. Gojek’s Winding Road Gojek began modestly in 2010. At first it was a “minimum viable product” venture—a local, low-tech operation led on a part-time basis by its faraway founder. Read More …

Amid worker and regulator complaints, Google is facing a turning point

By any measure, Google is a colossus of the tech industry, with a market capitalization of nearly $1.5 trillion , a massive army of lobbyists , and elite academics at its disposal . But lately, its reputation has been hurt by a highly publicized feud with well-respected ethical AI researchers, and revelations about its toxic workplace, previously hidden under NDAs , are roiling the tech giant’s PR-spun Disneyland-like facade. Now, it’s facing a multitude of challenges including talent attrition, resistance from an increasingly influential union, and increased public scrutiny. Privacy-centered competitors are nipping at its ankles, antitrust regulations loom on the horizon, and user interest in de-Googling their online activities is mounting. These headwinds are threatening the tech giant’s seemingly unassailable industry dominance and may bring us closer to a “de-Googled” world, where Google is no longer the default. At war with its workers In December 2020, the tech giant dismissed eminent scholar Timnit Gebru over a research paper that analyzed the bias inherent in large AI models that analyze human language—a type of AI that undergirds Google Search. Google’s whiplash-inducing reversal on ethics and diversity as soon as its core business was threatened was not entirely surprising. However, its decision to cover this up with a bizarre story claiming that Gebru resigned sparked widespread incredulity. Since Gebru’s ouster, Google has since fired her colleague Margaret Mitchell and restructured its “responsible AI” division under the leadership of another Black woman , now known to have deep links to surveillance technologies. These events sent shock waves through the research community beholden to Google for funding and triggered much-needed introspection about the insidious influence of Big Tech in this space . Last week, the organizers of the Black in AI, Queer in AI, and Widening NLP groups announced their decision to end their sponsorship relationship with Google in response. While the prestige and lucrative compensation that comes from working at Google is still a huge draw for many who don’t consider these issues a dealbreaker, some, such as Black in AI cofounder and scholar Rediet Abebe , were always wary. As Abebe explained in a tweet, her decision to back out of an internship at the tech giant was triggered by Google’s mistreatment of BIPOC, involvement with military warfare technologies, and ouster of Meredith Whittaker , another well-known AI researcher who played a lead role in the Google Walkout in 2018 . Abebe is not the only one who has decided to walk away from Google. In response to this latest AI ethics debacle, leading researcher Luke Stark turned down a significant monetary award , other talented engineers resigned , and Gebru’s much-respected manager Samy Bengio also left the company. A few years back this level of pushback would be unimaginable given Google’s formidable clout, but the tech giant seems to have met its match in Gebru and other workers who refuse to back down. Even with its formidable PR machinery spinning out an announcement touting an expanded AI ethics team, the damage has been done, and Google’s misguided actions will hurt its ability to attract credible talent for the foreseeable future. More ex-employees are also coming out with details of their horrifying experience s, adding fuel to the rising calls for better employee protections. These disclosures have renewed support for tech workers as hundreds of Google employees unionized after many years of activism, despite union-busting efforts by their employer. Read More …

Inside Hulu’s Disney-style future

Just over a year into Hulu’s full integration with the Walt Disney Company—thanks to Disney’s $71 billion acquisition of 20th Century Fox in 2019—the seeds of that partnership are starting to bear significant fruit. This year’s Best Picture Oscar winner, Nomadland , is available on Hulu, because it is a Searchlight Pictures title. FX, meanwhile, created one of Hulu’s most popular series last year, The Teacher . And the upcoming How I Met Your Mother spin-off— How I Met Your Father , which will star Hilary Duff—is based on the hit sitcom from 20th Century Fox Television. As Hulu continues to grow—it added 2.2 million domestic subscribers in the most recent quarter, bringing its total to 41.6 million—its strategy is simple: lean even harder into the creative hubs of its parent company. And not just the Fox arteries. Hulu is working more closely with ABC News on content, such as the exclusive one-hour special, 24 Hours: Assault on the Capitol , that streamed last January. Through a new deal that Disney signed with the National Hockey League in March, select hockey games will stream not just on ESPN Plus but also on Hulu. More football is also coming to the streamer thanks to its parent company, which owns ESPN. Read More …

After claiming to care about more than profit, corporate America still hasn’t found its soul

In 2019, 181 of America’s top CEOs made a bold, collective statement to the world: A company’s purpose had to be more than just making a return for its investors. This powerful group argued that there are other stakeholders in the equation that companies need to be answerable to, including customers, employees, suppliers, and the communities these companies serve. This statement flew in the face of the long-running capitalist mantra of maximizing shareholder value, and many experts argued that it was about time. Being the CEO of a publicly traded company today is a whole different ball game than what it was even two decades ago. Consumer activism is far more prevalent today thanks to access to social media. One study estimates that about 38% of all Americans boycott at least one company at any given point in time, with the number of boycotters growing double digits annually. The Fairtrade movement, which ensures that suppliers such as farmers get paid fairly, has been consistently growing in popularity for the past several decades. The conspicuous impact of the Black Lives Matter movement as well as the divisive presidential term of Donald Trump highlighted that companies could no longer remain indifferent to the political opinions of the communities they served. All these macro trends, coupled with an increased urgency around climate change, meant that the public at large warmly welcomed corporate America’s new statement of purpose.  For the optimists among us, it appeared that corporate America had finally taken the first step to discovering its soul. Yet, nearly two years later, we do not have much to show for it. In fact, just a few months ago, one of the more prominent advocates of the corporation-with-a-soul movement, Danone CEO Emmanuel Faber, was unceremoniously removed from his position. Shareholders ousted Faber because he could not generate a return for them during his tenure as CEO. Ironically, his public firing did not generate any uproar from the other stakeholders he had focused on serving. A sobering reality Corporate accountability can be a tricky thing to get right. Despite their elite statuses and high-compensation levels, most CEOs and top managers operate within the same framework as regular employees. They get hired for top jobs based on their skills, networks, and experience, are incentivized to perform well and can get fired if they don’t. Read More …