|To: Sr K who wrote (15353)||4/29/2020 8:27:58 AM|
|From: Glenn Petersen|
Alphabet stock rises more than 7% as ad slowdown turns out to be less than feared
Published Tue, Apr 28 20203:33 PM EDTUpdated Tue, Apr 28 20205:57 PM ED
Jennifer Elias @jenn_elias
Jordan Novet @jordannovet
-- The company put cost-cutting measures in place during the quarter.
-- Revenue growth slowed, but investors expected much worse.
Alphabet shares rose as much as 7% in extended trading on Tuesday after the company reported earnings for the first quarter and sounded a cautiously optimistic note that a steep drop-off in ad revenues in March was starting to moderate.
Here’s how the company did:
Earnings: $9.87 per share, adjusted
Revenue: $41.16 billion
Cloud revenue: $2.78 billion
YouTube advertising revenue: $4.04 billion
Traffic acquisition costs: $7.45 billion
Analysts surveyed by Refinitiv had expected $10.33 in adjusted earnings per share on $40.29 billion in revenue. Analysts polled by FactSet had expected $7.51 billion in traffic acquisition costs in the quarter. However, comparing Alphabet’s actual results with estimates isn’t straightforward given the difficulty of predicting the impact of the coronavirus.
On the conference call with analysts and investors, CEO Sundar Pichai said that usage of search, YouTube, and other apps and services was significantly higher as people looked for information on the coronavirus pandemic. Pichai gave an example of increased engagement, saying coronavirus-related search activity in the US, at its peak, was four times greater than during the peak of the Super Bowl.
But ad revenues suffered even as engagement rose. “In March, we experienced a significant and sudden slowdown in ad revenue” due to the coronavirus pandemic, Pichai said. He said that the company delayed some ad launches as a result.
During the call, CFO Ruth Porat sounded cautiously optimistic that the worst was behind. “The decline in our Search and other ads revenue was abrupt in March, and although we’re seeing some early signs at this point that users are returning to more commercial behavior, it’s not clear how durable or monetizable that will be.”
YouTube ad revenue grew 33% from last year, Porat said. However, she noted that brand advertising saw a steep drop-off in March, while other forms of YouTube advertising did not.
Google’s total advertising revenues rose to $33.76 billion from $30.59 billion the prior year:
Porat declined to give detailed guidance about the second quarter, only saying it will be “a difficult one.”
“As we move beyond the crisis, and the global economy normalizes, this should be reflected in our advertising revenues,” she added. “But it would be premature to comment on timing given all the variables here.”
Travel companies like Expedia Group and Booking Holdings normally spend heavily on Google search ads, since so many travelers search for trips with terms like “flight to London” or “hotel in San Francisco.” But Expedia recently said it normally spends $5 billion on ads, but that it probably “won’t spend $1 billion” this year. Similarly, Booking could slash Google ad spending on Google from about $4 billion in 2019 to $1 billion to $2 billion this year, Mark Mahaney, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, predicted.
Facebook shares also rose more than 3% after hours, as investors anticipated a similar ad spending pattern -- that is, not as dire as expected. Facebook, which generates substantially all of its revenue from advertising, reports earnings on Wednesday.
Expenses, buybacks, and other revenue
On the expense side, Porat also said that overall capex would see a “modest decrease” in 2020 as the company reduces global office space and slows the pace at which it buys office building. She also said the company has adjusted its headcount expectations down -- the company had previously expected more than 20% headcount growth this year, but said it would start to decelerate in the fourth quarter.
The company has begun to put some cost-cutting measures in place. Last week, CNBC reported that the company is cutting marketing budgets by as much as half while placing freezes on various parts across the company. It also told employees that it would be pulling back investments on from data centers and educational resources for workers.
Porat also noted that the company’s share buybacks would continue as planned, which should help the stock price by boosting earnings per share.
Google’s “other revenue,” which includes hardware like its Pixel phones and cloud products, came in at $4.44 billion, compared to $3.62 billion in the same quarter a year ago.
Revenue from “Other Bets,” which includes Alphabet’s self-driving car business Waymo as well as life sciences company Verily, came in at at $135 million compared to $170 million in the same quarter the year prior. The Other Bets showed an operating loss of $1.12 billion during the quarter.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Glenn Petersen||5/7/2020 4:22:33 PM|
|Alphabet’s Sidewalk Labs shuts down Toronto smart city project |
The high-tech ‘city-within-a-city’ drew criticism from local residents
By Andrew J. Hawkins @andyjayhawk
May 7, 2020, 11:56am EDT
Sidewalk Labs, Alphabet’s smart city subsidiary, is walking away from its ambitious plan to transform a slice of Toronto’s waterfront into a high-tech utopia.
The plan, which was projected to cost over a billion dollars and has been under development for over two years, had run into community opposition from local residents who objected to the company’s high-tech, sensor-laden vision for the city’s waterfront.
In an online statement, Sidewalk Labs CEO Dan Doctoroff said the “unprecedented economic uncertainty” as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has made the proposed project financially unviable.
According to Doctoroff:
For the last two-and-a-half years, we have been passionate about making Quayside happen — indeed, we have invested time, people, and resources in Toronto, including opening a 30-person office on the waterfront. But as unprecedented economic uncertainty has set in around the world and in the Toronto real estate market, it has become too difficult to make the 12-acre project financially viable without sacrificing core parts of the plan we had developed together with Waterfront Toronto to build a truly inclusive, sustainable community. And so, after a great deal of deliberation, we concluded that it no longer made sense to proceed with the Quayside project, and let Waterfront Toronto know yesterday.
At one point, Sidewalk Labs’ plan was to spend $1.3 billion on mass timber housing, heated and illuminated sidewalks, public Wi-Fi, and, of course, a host of cameras and other sensors to monitor traffic and street life. Residents objected to the company’s approach to privacy and intellectual property.
Since it first was announced in 2017, Sidewalk Labs’ Toronto project has faced constant criticism, both from city residents and others who oppose urban profiteering by tech giants about the opacity of its plans. In 2019 The Toronto Star published a report based on leaked documents that revealed the company to have grander ambitions than just a 12-acre lot. The documents revealed Sidewalk Labs was interested in developing a larger 350-acre swath that encompasses the current parcel.
Waterfront Toronto, Sidewalk Labs’ nonprofit, government-appointed partner on the project, released a statement stating it was not involved in the decision to end the project.
“While this is not the outcome we had hoped for, Waterfront Toronto offers thanks and appreciation to Sidewalk Labs for its vision, effort, and the many commitments that both the company and its employees have made to the future of Toronto,” board chair Stephen Diamond said.
The Quayside project could have been the realization of a long-held dream by ex-Alphabet CEO Larry Page, who, as far back as 2013, mused about ”set[ting] aside a part of the world” for experimentation. That off-hand comment at Google’s I/O conference spurred a fanciful take in Wired about what a “Google Island” may look like.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Glenn Petersen||5/13/2020 10:26:41 AM|
|Loon signs deal to expand commercial internet service to Mozambique|
Darrell Etherington @etherington /
8:27 am CDT • May 13, 2020
Loon, the Alphabet -owned company that’s using stratospheric balloons to provide high-speed bandwidth to hard-to-serve areas without strong ground infrastructure, has signed a new deal with carrier Vodacom to expand its offering in Africa to Mozambique. This is the second commercial agreement that Loon has in place in the continent, and its close proximity to Kenya, where its first deal is in place, means that the company will be able to use balloons across both markets.
The way Loon provides internet is by sending balloons to extremely high altitudes, equipped with radio equipment that effectively turns them into floating cellular broadband towers. The stratospheric positioning means they can cover a much wider area than ground-based cell towers, and reach areas where it’s been hard due to costs or accessibility to actually put in ground towers to begin with.
The deal for coverage in Mozambique will work similarly to its arrangement in Kenya, providing access to Vodacom’s customers in Cabo Delgado and Niassa, two provinces in the country. Connectivity simply wasn’t available at all to some of the areas covered under the new agreement, and Loon has already worked with its partners to secure the permissions necessary to fly its balloons over the target coverage areas.
Next up is installing ore ground infrastructure that can help relay the signals needed to ensure consistent connectivity, and Loon will also be test flying its balloons above Mozambique in order to gather the seat necessary for it to train the automated systems that fly them while in operation. Loon’s tech works by training algorithms to determine the best way to navigate stratospheric air currents in patterns that mean the balloons can stay in a relatively stable position over the target coverage area.
As mentioned, the close proximity of Mozambique to Kenya means that Loon will be able to figure out even more efficient ways to share balloons across both areas, so that when they float out of one country’s coverage area, they’ll be able to float into one for the other. That should give you a clue about Loon’s future expansion plans – economically, it makes the most sense for it to pursue partnerships in areas where it can realize even more of these kinds of efficiencies.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Glenn Petersen||5/15/2020 5:43:19 PM|
|Justice Department, State Attorneys General Likely to Bring Antitrust Lawsuits Against Google |
Both the federal and state investigations are focused on Google’s ad business
By Brent Kendall and John D. McKinnon
Wall Street Journal
Updated May 15, 2020 4:32 pm ET
In addition to looking at the social-media giant’s ad business, the Justice Department is focusing more broadly on how Google has used its search dominance. Photo: John Nacion/Zuma Press
WASHINGTON—Both the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general are likely to file antitrust lawsuits against Alphabet Inc.’s Google—and are well into planning for litigation, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department is moving toward bringing a case as soon as this summer, some of the people said. At least some state attorneys general—led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican—are likely to file a case, probably in the fall, people familiar with the matter said.
Much of the states’ investigation has focused on Google’s online advertising business. The company owns the dominant tool at every link in the complex chain between online publishers and advertisers. The Justice Department likewise is making Google’s ad technology one of its points of emphasis. But it is also focusing more broadly on concerns that Google uses its dominant search business to stifle competition, people familiar with the matter said.
Details about the Justice Department’s legal theories for a case against Google couldn’t be learned.
Though the coronavirus pandemic has complicated work for the Justice Department, Attorney General William Barr has devoted considerable resources to the Google probe and continues to treat it as a top priority. Mr. Barr told The Wall Street Journal in March that he wanted the Justice Department to make a final call this summer. “I’m hoping that we bring it to fruition early summer,” Mr. Barr said at the time. “And by fruition I mean, decision time.”
Mr. Paxton of Texas said the pandemic was not slowing the states’ efforts. “We’ve issued [civil subpoenas] to Google and impacted third parties. We hope to have the investigation wrapped up by fall,” Mr. Paxton said in a statement. “If we determine that filing is merited we will go to court soon after that.”
“We continue to engage with the ongoing investigations led by the Department of Justice and Attorney General Paxton, and we don’t have any updates or comments on speculation. Our focus is firmly on providing services that help consumers, support thousands of businesses and enable increased choice and competition,” a Google spokeswoman said.
The department continues to gather information in its probe and all signs point toward it bringing a case, the people said, but both the federal and state investigations are ongoing and no final decisions have been made. Investigations at times can be settled without litigation, though it’s unclear whether an agreement could be reached in the Google probes.
One unanswered question is whether the states will file their own complaint, or simply join in the federal case when it is filed. It’s even possible different groups of states will file separate complaints. Texas has been focused closely on ad tech issues, while some other states have been more interested in Google’s search function, for example, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Department of Justice is investigating the U.S.'s largest tech firms for allegedly monopolistic behavior. Roughly 20 years ago, a similar case threatened to destabilize Microsoft. WSJ explains.
State officials generally recognize the benefits of cooperating with the Justice Department, which has relatively strong resources, some of the people said.
Wall Street Journal publisher News Corp is a longtime Google critic and is among a group of the publishers that have been contacted by antitrust investigators.
The lawsuits—if they are filed—could pose a direct threat to Google’s businesses and rank among the most significant antitrust cases in U.S. history, alongside the government’s antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. in the late 1990s. The search giant’s critics have called for a range of sanctions against Google, from changes to its business practices to a breakup of the company.
As Google has grown into a powerful tech giant, it has long been on the federal government’s radar, though it has largely avoided enforcement actions. The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust authority with the Justice Department, previously conducted a broad investigation of Google but closed it in 2013, announcing that the evidence, on balance, didn’t warrant it. The company made some voluntary changes to certain business practices.
The FTC’s then-chairman, Jon Leibowitz, said that while some evidence suggested Google was unfairly biasing its search results to harm competition, the company’s primary motivations were to highlight its products and improve the online experience for users.
The Wall Street Journal first reported last June that the Justice Department was launching a broad antitrust investigation of Google.
Nearly two months later, the department announced expanded investigative plans, with a focus on several leading tech giants. Both the DOJ and the FTC have been examining competition concerns related to companies including Facebook Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. as well as Google.
The states announced their probe on the steps of the Supreme Court last September, on the same day they sent Google a civil subpoena seeking details about its online ad practices.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|From: Glenn Petersen||5/23/2020 9:18:33 AM|
|Sundar Pichai Says Google Doesn't Plan to Go Entirely Remote|
In an interview, the Google and Alphabet CEO discusses working from home, weathering antitrust probes, and how the company needs to do a better job on diversity.
May 22, 2020
“Coming to the US and getting much wider access to computing changed my life,” says Google CEO Sundar Pichai.PHOTOGRAPH: ERIK TANNER/THE NEW YORK TIMES/REDUX
SUNDAR PICHAI’S JOB wasn’t particularly easy before Covid-19. The 47-year-old CEO of Google and its parent company Alphabet (he assumed the latter post from cofounder Larry Page in December 2019) was already dealing with antitrust allegations, employee unrest, and a feeling that, as a trillion-dollar behemoth dominating global search and advertising, the company’s mojo as a charming innovator was fading. But one can argue that despite the challenges of a work-from-home company, Google is managing through the crisis, as users turn to its services (maybe not Maps) even more. It has even used the opportunity to collaborate with key rival Apple on contact tracing technology. Pichai is already looking ahead, knowing that post-Covid, the world will change. But the pre-virus challenges will still be with him.
Pichai has been reflective lately, while preparing his commencement speech for a June 6 “Dear Class of 2020” YouTube event. (He’ll be speaking in a lineup that includes the Obamas, Beyoncé, and Taylor Swift.) He talked to WIRED from his home in California—via Google Meet, of course—discussing the company’s Covid response (not committing to a work-from-home culture as Mark Zuckerberg did at Facebook), its antitrust and diversity woes, whether the company is still “Googley,” and his own journey from a small apartment in India to heading a trillion-dollar company. The interview has been edited for coherence and space.
Steven Levy: Google is a pretty good detector of what’s happening in the world. Did you get an early warning signal that a virus was going to make a huge difference to us all?
Sundar Pichai: It was very, very interesting to me to see emails from our Hong Kong, Taiwan, Beijing offices, where people were adapting to it. But I wouldn’t say that in early February I would have predicted the pace this would all roll out and affect everyone globally. It’s incredible to see.
How did you think of Google’s response?
Once we realized this was going to be bigger than any of us imagined, two quick thoughts: First, how do we keep our employees safe? So as early as we possibly could, we had to move the company to a distributed, global, work from home model. Second, in some ways Google and Alphabet were built for this moment. We are here to provide people information, help them in moments where they need help. So we realized it was important to step up our products and services but also the help we can give to communities and institutions.
You and Apple are collaborating on contact tracing tech that involves both your mobile operating systems. How did that start?
Both teams independently had started working on technology to support health agencies in their contact tracing work. Very quickly both sides realized that for this to work well it has to be available everywhere. So engineering teams across Android and iOS organically started reaching out. At some point, Tim and I decided to exchange notes and talk directly.
How often do you talk to Tim Cook?
We meet periodically, for sure. We partner with Apple in many areas. In this case, we felt the sum was greater than the parts.
Both your companies have been linked to surveillance capitalism, as some call it. But this product was crafted in a way that seems hyper-conscious of privacy, so much so that some people say it won’t be effective because it requires people to opt in.
You are right, opt-in is an important principle. We also realized we have to give users real privacy guarantees. I think we have struck the right balance. Even if only 10 to 20 percent of users opt in, this will have a real, meaningful impact. The more, the better.
Do you think this could open the door for other sorts of collaborations between the companies, which together own the world of mobile operating systems, or is this just a one-off?
Large companies working together in service of society is really good for the world. I am committed to finding other opportunities, and I had the same sense from Tim on this.
You said in your earnings call that once this emergency is passed, the world will not look the same. Can you elaborate?
The longer it goes on, the more lasting some of the effects will be. There will be lasting changes across all the areas the virus touched. Look at a hospital like Stanford, doing much more tele-health visits. If a hospital system was managing maybe 2 to 3 percent of the people they serve with tele-health, and the number is now 70 percent, they are not going to go back to 2 to 3 percent. Still, the need for human shared experiences is essential to who we are. Will people want to go back to music concerts? I think so. Will people want to get back in a stadium and watch sports? I absolutely think so. But I do think there will be lasting shifts.
Mark Zuckerberg just said that he thinks that half of Facebook’s workforce will be working from home by the end of the decade. Will that apply to Google?
I don’t think we are going to come out of this and be back where we were before this all started. So I expect us to adapt but it’s still too early to tell how much. Early on, I’m excited that some of this is working well. But it is based on a foundation of all of us knowing each other and having the regular interactions we already had. I’m curious to see what happens as we get into that three-to-six-month window and we get into things where we are doing something for the first time. How productive will we be when different teams who don’t normally work together have to come together for brainstorming, the creative process? We are going to have research, surveys, learn from data, learn what works.
What about this giant campus you’re building in Mountain View or the building you’re renovating in New York City? Do you have second thoughts about that?
In all scenarios I expect us to need physical spaces to get people together, absolutely. We have a lot of growth planned ahead. So even if there is some course correction I don’t think our existing footprint is going to be the issue. I am positive we will put it to good use and I’m anxious to see some of those projects get done.
Google’s advertising has taken a hit, particularly in sectors like travel. Will you be making cuts or layoffs?
We are not immune to the global economy and we have been impacted. And we support partners around the world and when their businesses get affected, that has an impact too. For sure I think we are navigating through those challenges. We are seeing opportunities, too. There are areas where we are seeing increased usage and engagement and we are supporting that. We are moderating our hiring plans but we are still bringing in people. That doesn’t mean we aren’t looking for efficiencies. We are looking at areas where we can course correct, where we can be more efficient, where we can streamline.
Let’s talk antitrust. There are reports that state and federal officials will file cases this year. Will the outcome result in a changed and constrained Google?
The scrutiny is not new for us. I think it is a proper function of a society to scrutinize large companies. We are in many ecosystems—for example, in ad tech, we are in the middle of an ecosystem where we’re supporting users, publishers, advertisers. I want to engage constructively. We will make our case as how we have approached our work through the lens of being helpful to users and customers.
Do you feel now constrained in M&A, fearing that your acquisitions will be blocked because of your market dominance?
We have operated that way for almost 10 years now. There are definitely acquisitions which we said “Okay, maybe that doesn’t make sense for us.” But it’s important to remember there are many, many areas where we are a smaller player, an emerging player. So we still see opportunities to do M&A but it just depends on the area.
Since you became the CEO of Alphabet, have you taken a second look at the concept of the holding company model, which seems to me to have had mixed results at best?
I was very closely involved with Larry and Sergey in thinking through and setting up Alphabet back in 2015. We were aligned in our long-term thinking. The bet was we were investing a lot in foundational deep technology, but not everything would fit in what I would call the internet space. And Alphabet was set up to be able to do that and to have separation from Google because some of the problems are very, very different where you’re applying technology. All of us realized this would be a bet for the long term. If you don’t have some failures you aren’t aiming big enough. So stepping back. I say that structure has been very, very helpful. The Google management team, which already has a lot to deal with, doesn’t need to worry about the other bets. And some areas where we have made a lot of progress we are actually now beginning to stand up as their own companies. We recently brought outside investors in Waymo, so it’s more of a functioning company.
Why not just spin off Waymo? The project has been going on for 10 years.
This goes to what I’m saying. If you look at the underlying, common technology, there’s a lot of synergies we see with artificial intelligence at Alphabet. Part of the reason we have gotten outside investors is to give the company the management structure and the governance and the expertise needed to work its way through. So it’s a combination of both.
"I expect us to need physical spaces to get people together."
So it is a step towards spinning it off?
We have no current plans. But just in general in the Alphabet structure, is there a possibility for some bet in the future? Yes, absolutely. Those are the opportunities for us to think about.
How much are Larry Page and Sergey Brin now involved in the business?
Through the transition, both Larry and Sergey told me that they would be there when I need to talk to them. So we talk all the time but it’s more informal. I enjoy our conversations. They both are brilliant long-term thinkers, Brilliant and … is the right word unconventional or nonconventional?
Larry promised the company would not be conventional.
Yeah. They are not conventional thinkers. There is value because they are not involved in day to day. Sometimes it’s always refreshing for me to talk to them because we talk with different time horizons..
When is the last time you talked to Larry?
Just a few days ago.
From your point of view, why did they leave?
I think I will leave that for them. They wrote that if the company was running well, they wanted to spend their time on the next set of things. But they are obviously active shareholders and board members.
You arrived at Google on April 1, 2004—the day that Gmail launched. It leapfrogged everything in the space and is now the standard. Google used to be known for this—Larry Page always said it wasn’t worth pursuing a product that was 10 percent better than competitors, and wanted new products to be 10x or 100x better. When was the last product like that at Google?
Since we did Gmail, we built and scaled up many newer products to be billion-user products. Photos is coming up on its fifth anniversary next week. I look at other areas where we are in early stages. Assistant is an example of that. People take it for granted now that you can ask a computer any question, anytime, anywhere. It’s part of our lives now. On our scale, some innovations happen within the context of a particular product. For example in the Pixel we can do live captioning for everything, call screening for every call. We are also doing it at a foundational level—just last year as a company we demonstrated quantum supremacy.
Is Google still Googley?
Absolutely. There are many, many aspects where nothing has changed. There is still Googleyness to walking around, and finding a sense of optimism and curiosity that reminds me when I first came to Google. Obviously we are at a different scale now so some of that manifests in the context of your individual teams rather than always at a company level. But the heart and soul of the company hasn’t changed.
One thing that did change was the way you did your weekly all-hands meeting TGIF. You no longer take any question employees would throw at you.
We are doing TGIFs repeatedly. In fact, I just did one two weeks ago. We have some of our highest attendance ever. The only change we did is we are doing them more periodically, once a month. We take questions at unit group levels because that’s the scale at which it works well. These are natural evolutions which we do as a bigger company.
One evolution is a tension between workers and management, as your workforce has pushed back on subjects like defense work, harassment and other issues.
Maybe what played out in the last couple of years had a more external component to it. But there have always been vocal debates within Google on many things.
"In some ways Google and Alphabet were built for this moment," Sundar Pichai says.
PHOTOGRAPH: ANDREW HARRER/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES
Recently NBC News reported that Google was retreating in some areas of pursuing diversity. You pushed back on that. But more broadly, Google has been releasing diversity reports regularly, and the improvements have been minimal. Google is a company that prides itself on moonshots, taking on seemingly impossible missions. Why not a diversity moonshot, doing whatever it takes to make significant changes in those numbers?
It’s a good question. As you said, we were one of the first companies to publish reports. And last year we continued to increase representation for women globally and for black and Latinx employees in the US. We have done programs like a partnership at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. One of the things which makes it hard to move the numbers is that we are growing a lot. But I absolutely accept the premise that we all need to improve. We are all asking ourselves the question what would actually move the needle more and what are the bigger things we need to do.
What is your OKR (objective and key result) on diversity numbers?
On these areas, we took a long-term view so we don’t have specific goals. Our numbers are much below where they need to be so we have a lot of room to make up.
Where does Google stand on China now?
Today, we have a presence as a company in China. But we are not currently offering or have no plans to offer any of our core products in China.
Is the Dragonfly Chinese search engine dead?
We have no plans to offer search in China.
A couple of questions about our president. The White House announced that you are on the Great American Economic Revival Industry Group. Did you know this in advance?
I don’t know all the underlying mechanics of how it came about. We already committed to helping the government do everything we can.
How would you describe your relationship with the president? There was the case where he said Google was working on a testing website that didn’t exist. Later, he said that you had apologized to him when apparently that call didn’t happen. What’s the way that an important company handles a president like Donald Trump?
We take our civic responsibility seriously. So we stand by ready to help the government. I have engaged with the president and our engagements have been constructive, focused on the task at hand.
Do you participate in content decisions? If the president spreads misinformation on your platform, would the discussion of whether to remove the post bubble up to you?
Obviously, the vast majority of the YouTube decisions get handled there. Depending on the importance of it. I am in meetings too. But we bring in a lot of outside expertise. Last year, when we expanded our harassment policies, for example, we consulted widely with a bunch of external groups. We are doing the same with medical misinformation. We engage widely with outside experts and outside clinics, or in some of the health cases, public health agencies. But yes, I am definitely in some of the debates as needed.
Would you be prepared to block a Trump speech or statement that gives dangerous medical misinformation?
I don’t want to answer hypotheticals. In general it’s really important in a democracy that as a company you support political discourse. Our role is to surface news sources actively in context around any of these things.
Do you feel it’s necessary or desirable to have an outside body that can overrule you, like Facebook has just started?
I am always watching all the different processes that other companies are doing. To the extent that there are valuable learnings from it, we’ll incorporate.
You came to the US as an immigrant from India and are now the head of one of the world’s most powerful companies. Tell me how you view your own journey.
I was fascinated by technology, but I had very little access to it. I vividly remember our first rotary telephone, television and so on. Coming to the US and getting much wider access to computing changed my life. A lot of my journey has been about making sure that that access to technology can happen at scale. I never obviously expected to be doing what I’m doing today but I’m grateful and I think it’s a privilege to be working in a way that you can touch the lives of billions of people.
This touches on the mystery of Sundar Pichai. The most frequent comment about you is how nice a person you are. But one doesn’t get to become the CEO of a trillion-dollar company without a lot of relentless drive. What don’t we know about you?
I get a lot of satisfaction and drive from building things which people use and impact people’s lives. The rest is an outcome of that for me.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: TimF who wrote (15362)||5/24/2020 2:10:09 PM|
|I wonder what the is reason for looking at personal files? It seems to me that is crossing the line. I understand that in their terms and conditions you allow them to read your data but to censor that data is just wrong (unless it is for terrorist and/or illegal activities).|
Is their the same censorship by other cloud service platforms?
What is labeled 'mis-information' by one source is creditable information by another. Many times there is some factual information in BOTH sources and many scientists use all information sources to arrive at even other different conclusions.
We are in the period of Big Data; Huge (very huge) data sets that AI can manipulate, process and arrive at their own conclusions. Typically they scan these datasets to create a sub group data set. At what point do you filter, delete, modify and/or just 'fake' that data to arrive at your conclusion . . must you get the Google seal of approval.
We live in interesting times
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|