vox--2020-07-29--The pandemic changed my mind about Peloton

Eight months ago , Peloton , the at-home digital exercise company , released a much-maligned holiday commercial .
In the ad , a man gets his beautiful wife ( known only as “ Grace from Boston ” ) a Peloton bike for Christmas .
She uses it every day , recording each ride , and then splices the footage together into a thank-you video for her husband , which they watch together .
The act of getting an exercise bike for someone who maybe didn ’ t ask for an exercise bike , combined with the hostage video ambiance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn to love an obligation-creating present , made it seem like the unnamed husband wanted a skinnier , more beautiful version of his already-beautiful wife .
“ We now know the message we were trying to convey — the emotional and mental changes that our members experience with Peloton — was lost , ” Peloton chief content officer Jennifer Cotter told me at the time .
“ It was eye-opening for us because it showed us that we really are in a position to change how people view their relationship to the wellness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no matter where you start.
” I had compared the commercial to a Bavarian fairytale created to incite obedience in children , calling it “ more like a threat than a gift , ” but now that we ’ re five months into shutdowns and gyms are shut down indefinitely , I ’ ve come to the conclusion that I would gladly accept $ 2,000 of exercise equipment from any man who would want to gift me it .
In May , I used money I ’ d saved to buy a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,245 , plus $ 39 a month for the app — as a quarantine purchase for myself .
Over the past few months , I ’ ve taken around 85 or so classes with multiple instructors .
I can ’ t recommend that for everyone — fitness was and is a priority in my life , and your mileage may vary about the amount that you ’ re willing to spend .
But I ’ m here to report that while Peloton and I can agree the commercial was a little off , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little wrong about Peloton .
For the last six years , news stories have pitted Peloton and SoulCycle against each other , asking “ which spin company rules the roost ?
” SoulCycle , founded in 2006 , reinvigorated and recreated the way in which we think about group fitness .
For those in the business world , SoulCycle completely upended expectations about the sector ’ s profitability .
Peloton , which released its bike in 2014 , was seen as the upstart and SoulCycle ’ s primary rival .
As a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was skeptical .
But that rivalry narrative is deeply flawed — the only thing the two really have in common is that they both sell spin classes .
The difference is that Peloton genuinely , for better and worse , is a solo experience .
The difference is that Peloton genuinely , for better and worse , is a solo experience Peloton isn ’ t trying to emulate SoulCycle ’ s signature selling point : the experience of riding in synchronicity with a room of 50 other people .
A lot of my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stemmed from wanting the experience to be SoulCycle at home , wanting to ride to the beat of the music with all my friends .
The sooner I stopped thinking about it like that , the more I enjoyed Peloton for what it was .
The Peloton bike is so sleek , I almost feel bad that I don ’ t have a proper , well-lit area for it like Grace from Boston does .
It runs on a magnetic flywheel .
This allows for a smooth and quiet ride .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smooth at-home bikes is its app and touchscreen .
In front of the handlebars is a hefty screen — big enough that you could probably watch Avengers : Endgame on it and have a great experience — which holds Peloton ’ s massive library of archived classes and upcoming live ones .
It feels as though it would take a lifetime to get through all the classes , and new ones are added each day .
The interface is intuitive and responsive .
I was never lost , even though there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app itself and a lot of metrics swirling around each class .
Those metrics are part of the appeal .
Hovering at the bottom of the touchscreen and during every class are three numbers : resistance ( the amount of weight you ’ re pushing against ) , cadence ( the speed at which you ’ re pedaling ) , and output ( the power you ’ re generating with your cadence and resistance ) .
Instead of pedaling to the beat , instructors give you a specific target range of numbers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then , at the end of class , you ’ re given a final total for your output , a quantified number that represents all the effort you expended into that workout .
The app neatly tracks and sorts all of your metrics , showing your improvement with each workout .
Those numbers also set off my competitive side .
On the side of the screen , there ’ s a leaderboard displaying everyone ’ s outputs in real time .
You can see exactly where you fall among the tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands , who are currently taking or have previously taken the class .
The leaderboard also displays the best outputs you ’ ve ever had , so you can race against yourself every single time you snap into the bike .
Peloton is a great workout , but is it fun ?
After a couple of weeks of riding , I found myself a bit anxious about my numbers .
Every time I signed in for a class , I wanted to do better than I had previously done .
Despite instructors telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hitting a personal best record , I still found myself chasing them and my place on the leaderboard .
I was getting better workouts , but I also wasn ’ t , maybe , enjoying them as much as I should .
Every time I signed in for a class , I wanted to do better than I had previously done Apparently , the numbers obsession is common .
On Reddit , one of the most common questions on the Peloton subreddit is how numbers are calculated and how to maximize their outputs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ accomplishment ” and “ challenge , ” I can ’ t recommend Peloton ’ s classes enough .
If you ’ re the type who can keep your numbers and everyone else ’ s out of your mind , you ’ d probably get a lot out of it too .
To bring back some of the fun , I created an account on my profile where I minimize the stats and leaderboard , and just try to have a good time .
I suppose it ’ s like a finsta ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) where I get to just put up carefree outputs while keeping competitive on main .
I don ’ t want my low outputs to be judged .
And creating a separate profile ( you ’ re allowed six on your account ) helps me choose what kind of mood I ’ m in and lets me enjoy it a bit more .
That ’ s not to say there ’ s no joy : one of the Peloton ’ s best features is that it allows you to see instructors ’ playlists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I found my favorite instructors : Robin Arzon , Ben Alldis , and the only person who loves Little Mix as much as I do , Cody Rigsby .
Robin in particular knows how to put together a cardio workout with enough recoveries that it feels good on your body while still challenging it .
She also knows that exercise is part therapy , part challenge ; a pocket of time where you can shut off and go on autopilot for 20 or so minutes , 45 if you ’ re lucky .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look at exercise before exercise became one of the many things I now do in my home .
She makes Peloton feel like an escape rather than a distraction .
And that ’ s what I ’ m happy to pay for .
The Peloton bike is an investment in our fairly bleak future The Peloton bike isn ’ t cheap .
The cost is a huge factor , and I can ’ t do the math for you .
It made sense for me , though .
Prior to the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ luxuries down the list .
And since lockdown began , I ’ ve said goodbye to a vacation that I was saving up for and cut down even further when it comes to leisure spending .
I ’ m also not paying for a gym ( in New York City , they remain closed ) .
I was lucky enough to be able to buy a bike for myself .
I don ’ t know when I ’ ll be able to go back to the gym or Barry ’ s , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I don ’ t know if I ’ ll be able to feel safe going back to my previous routines .
As we ’ ve seen all across the US , states that reopened are now fighting to contain infection spikes .
Throughout the pandemic , I ’ ve spoken to health experts and group fitness business owners and found that everything that makes group fitness and gyms great is exactly what makes working out with other people one of the riskiest things we can do .
If the US decided tomorrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wouldn ’ t feel safe going .
And barring a vaccine breakthrough , I wouldn ’ t feel safe going two , four , or maybe even six months from now .
That ’ s a huge reason why any exercise equipment feels like a good investment for someone who really misses the gym , and why any bike seems like a good investment for someone who enjoys spin .
The things that bring Peloton from something good to something great are its app and interface , its instructors , and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of content — in addition to spin , strength , yoga , running , and meditation classes bundled in the app — Peloton is light-years ahead of its competition and has been filming throughout the pandemic .
You can take classes from months and months ago , or ride in that one amazing class over and over again .
Those elements combine to make Peloton feel like a pause from the current reality .
Peloton makes working out at home feel nothing like working out at home .
Hopping on the bike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 20- , 35- , 40-minute respite I ’ d get in the before times when I ’ d go to the gym or a workout and just let go .
And that ’ s one of the biggest reasons why I ’ m happy I have one and will continue to use it even when everything does open up again .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Eight months ago, Peloton, the at-home digital exercise company, released a much-maligned holiday commercial. In the ad, a man gets his beautiful wife (known only as “Grace from Boston”) a Peloton bike for Christmas. She uses it every day, recording each ride, and then splices the footage together into a thank-you video for her husband, which they watch together.
The act of getting an exercise bike for someone who maybe didn’t ask for an exercise bike, combined with the hostage video ambiance of the woman’s early struggle to learn to love an obligation-creating present, made it seem like the unnamed husband wanted a skinnier, more beautiful version of his already-beautiful wife.
“We now know the message we were trying to convey — the emotional and mental changes that our members experience with Peloton — was lost,” Peloton chief content officer Jennifer Cotter told me at the time. “It was eye-opening for us because it showed us that we really are in a position to change how people view their relationship to the wellness journey and the benefits you can experience, no matter where you start.”
I had compared the commercial to a Bavarian fairytale created to incite obedience in children, calling it “more like a threat than a gift,” but now that we’re five months into shutdowns and gyms are shut down indefinitely, I’ve come to the conclusion that I would gladly accept $2,000 of exercise equipment from any man who would want to gift me it.
In May, I used money I’d saved to buy a Peloton bike — which starts at $2,245, plus $39 a month for the app — as a quarantine purchase for myself. Over the past few months, I’ve taken around 85 or so classes with multiple instructors. I can’t recommend that for everyone — fitness was and is a priority in my life, and your mileage may vary about the amount that you’re willing to spend. But I’m here to report that while Peloton and I can agree the commercial was a little off, I can also admit I was a little wrong about Peloton.
Peloton brings out your competitive side
For the last six years, news stories have pitted Peloton and SoulCycle against each other, asking “which spin company rules the roost?” SoulCycle, founded in 2006, reinvigorated and recreated the way in which we think about group fitness. For those in the business world, SoulCycle completely upended expectations about the sector’s profitability. Peloton, which released its bike in 2014, was seen as the upstart and SoulCycle’s primary rival. As a former SoulCycle and group fitness devotee, I was skeptical.
But that rivalry narrative is deeply flawed — the only thing the two really have in common is that they both sell spin classes. The difference is that Peloton genuinely, for better and worse, is a solo experience.
The difference is that Peloton genuinely, for better and worse, is a solo experience
Peloton isn’t trying to emulate SoulCycle’s signature selling point: the experience of riding in synchronicity with a room of 50 other people. A lot of my early gripes with Peloton, commercial aside, stemmed from wanting the experience to be SoulCycle at home, wanting to ride to the beat of the music with all my friends. The sooner I stopped thinking about it like that, the more I enjoyed Peloton for what it was.
The Peloton bike is so sleek, I almost feel bad that I don’t have a proper, well-lit area for it like Grace from Boston does. It runs on a magnetic flywheel. This allows for a smooth and quiet ride.
But what separates Peloton from other gorgeous, smooth at-home bikes is its app and touchscreen.
In front of the handlebars is a hefty screen — big enough that you could probably watch Avengers: Endgame on it and have a great experience — which holds Peloton’s massive library of archived classes and upcoming live ones. It feels as though it would take a lifetime to get through all the classes, and new ones are added each day.
The interface is intuitive and responsive. I was never lost, even though there’s a massive amount of content in the app itself and a lot of metrics swirling around each class. Those metrics are part of the appeal.
Hovering at the bottom of the touchscreen and during every class are three numbers: resistance (the amount of weight you’re pushing against), cadence (the speed at which you’re pedaling), and output (the power you’re generating with your cadence and resistance). Instead of pedaling to the beat, instructors give you a specific target range of numbers for your cadence and resistance to fall into. Then, at the end of class, you’re given a final total for your output, a quantified number that represents all the effort you expended into that workout.
The app neatly tracks and sorts all of your metrics, showing your improvement with each workout. Those numbers also set off my competitive side.
On the side of the screen, there’s a leaderboard displaying everyone’s outputs in real time. You can see exactly where you fall among the tens of thousands of people, sometimes hundreds of thousands, who are currently taking or have previously taken the class. The leaderboard also displays the best outputs you’ve ever had, so you can race against yourself every single time you snap into the bike.
Peloton is a great workout, but is it fun?
After a couple of weeks of riding, I found myself a bit anxious about my numbers.
Every time I signed in for a class, I wanted to do better than I had previously done. Despite instructors telling you not to worry about numbers or hitting a personal best record, I still found myself chasing them and my place on the leaderboard. I was getting better workouts, but I also wasn’t, maybe, enjoying them as much as I should.
Every time I signed in for a class, I wanted to do better than I had previously done
Apparently, the numbers obsession is common. On Reddit, one of the most common questions on the Peloton subreddit is how numbers are calculated and how to maximize their outputs.
If you’re driven by “accomplishment” and “challenge,” I can’t recommend Peloton’s classes enough. If you’re the type who can keep your numbers and everyone else’s out of your mind, you’d probably get a lot out of it too.
To bring back some of the fun, I created an account on my profile where I minimize the stats and leaderboard, and just try to have a good time. I suppose it’s like a finsta (fake/secret Instagram profiles that the youths popularized) where I get to just put up carefree outputs while keeping competitive on main. I don’t want my low outputs to be judged. And creating a separate profile (you’re allowed six on your account) helps me choose what kind of mood I’m in and lets me enjoy it a bit more.
That’s not to say there’s no joy: one of the Peloton’s best features is that it allows you to see instructors’ playlists ahead of time. This is how I found my favorite instructors: Robin Arzon, Ben Alldis, and the only person who loves Little Mix as much as I do, Cody Rigsby.
Robin in particular knows how to put together a cardio workout with enough recoveries that it feels good on your body while still challenging it. She also knows that exercise is part therapy, part challenge; a pocket of time where you can shut off and go on autopilot for 20 or so minutes, 45 if you’re lucky. Robin reminds me of how I used to look at exercise before exercise became one of the many things I now do in my home. She makes Peloton feel like an escape rather than a distraction. And that’s what I’m happy to pay for.
The Peloton bike is an investment in our fairly bleak future
The Peloton bike isn’t cheap. The cost is a huge factor, and I can’t do the math for you. It made sense for me, though.
Prior to the pandemic, I prioritized exercise and pushed other luxuries down the list. And since lockdown began, I’ve said goodbye to a vacation that I was saving up for and cut down even further when it comes to leisure spending. I’m also not paying for a gym (in New York City, they remain closed). I was lucky enough to be able to buy a bike for myself.
I don’t know when I’ll be able to go back to the gym or Barry’s, my favorite real-life workout. Even more pertinent: I don’t know if I’ll be able to feel safe going back to my previous routines.
As we’ve seen all across the US, states that reopened are now fighting to contain infection spikes. Throughout the pandemic, I’ve spoken to health experts and group fitness business owners and found that everything that makes group fitness and gyms great is exactly what makes working out with other people one of the riskiest things we can do. If the US decided tomorrow to allow states to open gyms, I wouldn’t feel safe going. And barring a vaccine breakthrough, I wouldn’t feel safe going two, four, or maybe even six months from now.
That’s a huge reason why any exercise equipment feels like a good investment for someone who really misses the gym, and why any bike seems like a good investment for someone who enjoys spin.
The things that bring Peloton from something good to something great are its app and interface, its instructors, and its absolutely extensive library of classes. In terms of content — in addition to spin, strength, yoga, running, and meditation classes bundled in the app — Peloton is light-years ahead of its competition and has been filming throughout the pandemic. You can take classes from months and months ago, or ride in that one amazing class over and over again.
Those elements combine to make Peloton feel like a pause from the current reality.
Peloton makes working out at home feel nothing like working out at home. Hopping on the bike, for me, is the kind of 20-, 35-, 40-minute respite I’d get in the before times when I’d go to the gym or a workout and just let go. And that’s one of the biggest reasons why I’m happy I have one and will continue to use it even when everything does open up again.


vox--2020-07-29--The Big Tech hearings won’t lead to real change. That’s okay.

On Wednesday , four of the most powerful men in the world will answer pointed questions from US lawmakers who have real concerns about the massive tech companies these men lead .
The big , overriding theme of the virtual antitrust hearing : Are Facebook , Google , Amazon , and Apple too powerful ?
So powerful that they should be broken up ?
The hearing , which will be livestreamed , is a historic event and you should watch it , or at least follow coverage .
But you should also go into this with your expectations set : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee ’ s hearing on Wednesday , featuring Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai , Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos , Apple CEO Tim Cook , and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg , will generate a viral soundbite or two .
It ’ s even possible that something one of the CEOs says will become ammunition used against them in a legal fight down the road .
But what won ’ t happen on Wednesday is anything that has a direct impact on how , or if , the biggest tech companies in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already know that congressional hearings are just that — a chance to hear from citizens and government officials .
At a minimum , they are a place to get public answers on the record , like the grilling US Attorney General William Barr received from the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday over everything from his handling of the Mueller investigation to his use of federal troops to quell protests in Washington , DC , and Portland , Oregon .
And sometimes , like in Wednesday ’ s case , they can also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t directly lead to any rule-changing or law-making .
That stuff will or won ’ t happen , for the most part , off-camera .
Some of it will be in closed-door meetings between regulators and lobbyists from the tech companies ; some may be in legal proceedings , like an expected antitrust suit in the works against Alphabet , led by state attorneys general .
The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are also pursuing investigations into all four of the companies whose leaders are testifying on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could eventually play out with an order to break the companies up , like Standard Oil at the beginning of the 20th century and the Bell Telephone system in the 1980s .
( Twenty years ago , a court order was also supposed to break up Microsoft , though that never went through . )
But that ’ s a very long game .
As a reminder : With the exception of Amazon ’ s Bezos , the other three tech leaders have all sat before Congress before .
If you are deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one significant takeaway from Zuckerberg ’ s testimony in the spring of 2018 , which was focused on Facebook ’ s privacy practices : In four words , plus a smirk , he explained Facebook ’ s business model to Sen. Orrin Hatch .
A year after that hearing , the US government did actually do something about Facebook — it got the company to agree to a record-breaking $ 5 billion settlement and layered on oversight that ’ s supposed to ( in theory ) make the company less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that action came via the Federal Trade Commission ; when it comes to Facebook and its privacy failures , Congress hasn ’ t done anything meaningful .
It is always possible , theoretically , that Congress will pass meaningful legislation regarding the internet and the companies that dominate it .
But things would have to change radically for that to happen , because right now different factions of Congress speak completely different languages when it comes to internet regulation .
Democrats worry about the power of big tech companies to reshape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Republicans harp on unsupported claims that big tech companies are censoring conservatives .
And that dynamic extends beyond Congress .
Barr , who has taken a very public interest in pursuing antitrust claims against Google , among other big tech companies , has said , out loud , that tech companies are using their power to “ censor different viewpoints , ” and that “ one way this can be addressed is through the antitrust laws and challenging companies that engage in monopolistic practices.
” So expect to hear questions directed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along those lines at the hearing .
On the other hand , this won ’ t be a replay of earlier Silicon Valley-comes-to-Washington hearings , during which a series of politicians made unwitting proclamations about their tech ignorance .
US Rep. David Cicilline ( D-RI ) , who is running the antitrust subcommittee hosting Wednesday ’ s hearing , is someone with a relish for this work , and he will undoubtedly produce documents and transcripts that make the four CEOs squirm at different times .
And unlike other Big Tech hearings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subcommittee , which means less opportunity for pointless digressions .
And as we saw on Tuesday when he questioned Barr , Cicilline is also quite adept with an array of barbed questions and commentary .
So go ahead and watch , because this stuff really is important : The men who rule technology are , increasingly , rulers of their own mammoth kingdoms , and they are long overdue for a public accounting .
And if we can get that out of the hearings , it will be well worth it .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to have to wait .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

On Wednesday, four of the most powerful men in the world will answer pointed questions from US lawmakers who have real concerns about the massive tech companies these men lead. The big, overriding theme of the virtual antitrust hearing: Are Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple too powerful? So powerful that they should be broken up?
The hearing, which will be livestreamed, is a historic event and you should watch it, or at least follow coverage.
But you should also go into this with your expectations set: It’s quite likely that the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee’s hearing on Wednesday, featuring Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will generate a viral soundbite or two. It’s even possible that something one of the CEOs says will become ammunition used against them in a legal fight down the road.
But what won’t happen on Wednesday is anything that has a direct impact on how, or if, the biggest tech companies in the world are regulated.
Some of you already know that congressional hearings are just that — a chance to hear from citizens and government officials. At a minimum, they are a place to get public answers on the record, like the grilling US Attorney General William Barr received from the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday over everything from his handling of the Mueller investigation to his use of federal troops to quell protests in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon.
And sometimes, like in Wednesday’s case, they can also be high-profile bits of theater.
But they don’t directly lead to any rule-changing or law-making. That stuff will or won’t happen, for the most part, off-camera. Some of it will be in closed-door meetings between regulators and lobbyists from the tech companies; some may be in legal proceedings, like an expected antitrust suit in the works against Alphabet, led by state attorneys general. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are also pursuing investigations into all four of the companies whose leaders are testifying on Wednesday.
In theory, any antitrust lawsuit could eventually play out with an order to break the companies up, like Standard Oil at the beginning of the 20th century and the Bell Telephone system in the 1980s. (Twenty years ago, a court order was also supposed to break up Microsoft, though that never went through.) But that’s a very long game.
As a reminder: With the exception of Amazon’s Bezos, the other three tech leaders have all sat before Congress before. If you are deep into this stuff, you may recall the one significant takeaway from Zuckerberg’s testimony in the spring of 2018, which was focused on Facebook’s privacy practices: In four words, plus a smirk, he explained Facebook’s business model to Sen. Orrin Hatch.
A year after that hearing, the US government did actually do something about Facebook — it got the company to agree to a record-breaking $5 billion settlement and layered on oversight that’s supposed to (in theory) make the company less likely to trample its users’ privacy rights. But that action came via the Federal Trade Commission; when it comes to Facebook and its privacy failures, Congress hasn’t done anything meaningful.
It is always possible, theoretically, that Congress will pass meaningful legislation regarding the internet and the companies that dominate it. But things would have to change radically for that to happen, because right now different factions of Congress speak completely different languages when it comes to internet regulation. Democrats worry about the power of big tech companies to reshape the economy and to abuse Americans’ privacy; Republicans harp on unsupported claims that big tech companies are censoring conservatives.
And that dynamic extends beyond Congress. Barr, who has taken a very public interest in pursuing antitrust claims against Google, among other big tech companies, has said, out loud, that tech companies are using their power to “censor different viewpoints,” and that “one way this can be addressed is through the antitrust laws and challenging companies that engage in monopolistic practices.”
So expect to hear questions directed at Zuckerberg and Pichai, at least, along those lines at the hearing.
On the other hand, this won’t be a replay of earlier Silicon Valley-comes-to-Washington hearings, during which a series of politicians made unwitting proclamations about their tech ignorance. US Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who is running the antitrust subcommittee hosting Wednesday’s hearing, is someone with a relish for this work, and he will undoubtedly produce documents and transcripts that make the four CEOs squirm at different times. And unlike other Big Tech hearings, questions here will be limited to the subcommittee, which means less opportunity for pointless digressions.
And as we saw on Tuesday when he questioned Barr, Cicilline is also quite adept with an array of barbed questions and commentary.
Rep. Cicilline: Is it ever appropriate for the President to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?
Barr: Depends what kind of assistance pic.twitter.com/jMwv3c2zG2 — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) July 28, 2020
So go ahead and watch, because this stuff really is important: The men who rule technology are, increasingly, rulers of their own mammoth kingdoms, and they are long overdue for a public accounting. And if we can get that out of the hearings, it will be well worth it. But if you want actual change, you’re going to have to wait.


vox--2020-07-29--The pandemic is raising concerns about how teens use technology. But there’s still a lot we don’t kn

The pandemic is raising concerns about how teens use technology. But there’s still a lot we don’t know.

As the US continues to struggle to contain the Covid-19 pandemic and social distancing recommendations remain in place , millions of US children and adolescents aren ’ t expected to attend school in-person in the fall — meaning they ’ ll often be stuck inside their homes and using the internet as a primary means of human connection .
The situation has resurfaced a longstanding , difficult-to-answer question : Is technology going to ruin my teenager ’ s brain ?
For years , some have blamed the growing rate of teenagers suffering from mental health issues in the US on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re engaging with digital devices compared to previous generations — but there isn ’ t much hard evidence to back up those claims .
It ’ s true that we ’ re seeing unprecedented levels of teenagers using digital devices — some 95 percent of US teens have access to a smartphone , and 45 percent say they are online “ almost constantly , ” according to a 2018 Pew poll .
And during the same period of time that internet and smartphone use has increased for a generation of young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also steadily increased ( across all ages overall ) , with a disproportionate increase in the rate of tween girls aged 10 to 14 in particular .
But the rise of teenagers ’ use of social media at the same time that depression rates have been going up shows correlation , not causation .
Meaning , there ’ s no evidence to prove that teenagers ’ use of social media is why we ’ re seeing this increase in depression instead of any number of other confounding factors — like their family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else .
To know if that ’ s the case or not , we need a lot more comprehensive research that isolates these other factors .
Considering how important the stakes are , answering this question is important — and pressing .
A new report from the nonprofit Common Sense Media , a national advocacy group focused on digital access and safety for children and families , reflects the urgency and state of the conversation .
The report , written by UC Irvine child psychology professor Candice Odgers and Common Sense research director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing research about the effects of tech use on teens , draw conclusions about the overall risks and benefits , and suggest recommendations for parents , educators , and the public .
But one of the biggest conclusions from Common Sense ’ s report is that the existing research doesn ’ t tell us enough , and we need more refined scientific evidence to know anything conclusive about the effects of social media on teenagers ’ mental health .
In the meantime , it ’ s important to understand what the concerns around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health are — and what to consider when it comes to figuring out how to help teens have a balanced relationship with technology , especially while living through a pandemic .
The concern : “ Our kids are walking around with slot machines in their pockets ” Jennifer Siebel Newsom , first partner to California ’ s Governor Gavin Newsom , who contributed an essay to the report , wrote that she understands digital devices like tablets and laptops are necessary tools for getting an education during Covid-19 school shutdowns .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the effects of these devices on children and teens ’ mental health .
“ [ A ] s a mom , I can ’ t ignore the reality in my home .
Distance learning for my four kids this spring opened the floodgates to media and its adverse effects .
What started with using Zoom and Gmail for homework assignments became internet searches bringing up age-inappropriate information — and misinformation , ” wrote Siebel Newsom .
“ All of a sudden my eldest were sneaking off to their rooms , or hiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both Siebel Newsom and others who contributed to the report , like former Democratic presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang , want to see technology and media companies accept more responsibility for their impact on children , even if we don ’ t yet have research showing exactly what that impact is .
Yang , in particular , called for the government to drastically fund more research and step in , if needed , to incentivize tech companies to educate children , rather than entertain them , to collect ad dollars .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected to be worth $ 1.7 billion by 2021 , according to a report from PwC . )
“ Right now , the interests of parents are directly at odds with the interests of the technology companies , ” wrote Yang .
“ They ’ re monetizing our attention and profiting off of our time .
As they say , the addictive nature of smartphones is a feature , not a bug .
We parents are outgunned and at a total loss.
” Both Newsom and Yang ’ s comments draw on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what kids are doing with their time online , and how this will impact their development .
The evidence is inconclusive and more research is needed So , while there ’ s no shortage of concern about how much time adolescents are spending on their phones , what does the research actually say ?
Unfortunately , not enough for us to draw any quantitative , evidence-based conclusions — and that ’ s why we should start doing that research in earnest now .
The report ’ s meta-analysis of the most up-to-date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mix of “ small positive , negative , and mostly neutral ” links between adolescents ’ use of technology like social media and their mental health .
Authors of the report looked at two large-scale reviews of existing research on the topic published earlier this year , and found results associating adolescents ’ mental health and use of digital technology “ inconsistent ” — even when an association was present , it accounted for less than 1 percent of the variation .
This failure to find a stronger link between teen depression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Odgers and Robb write , “ given that mental health disorders emerge from a complex set of social , genetic , and experiential factors , which have varying influence across development and situations.
” Still , “ small effects can be meaningful , ” the report states , “ but with existing evidence we have no way to separate cause from effect in social media research with adolescents.
” If researchers wanted to actually separate cause from effect , we would need research that asks more specific questions and is backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleague Brian Resnick has previously explained .
Self-reported surveys on teens ’ wellbeing can be biased — so another option would be for scientists to use brain scans showing neurological development over time to track the tangible effects of social media on children ’ s wellbeing .
While there is at least one large study like this underway , that ’ s funded by the National Institutes of Health , it will be several years before we see its results .
Until then , researchers are asking for more granular data from companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand exactly how kids are using their devices — are they binging on Fortnite , or watching educational YouTube videos ?
So far , tech companies like Apple largely haven ’ t given researchers the option to see people ’ s screentime data that shows how much they use different apps on their phones , for example — even with their consent .
With all this in mind , the report calls for the government and other groups to fund more research on this topic .
While the jury ’ s still out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the report does offer some child psychologist-backed recommendations for teen tech use .
An important one : It ’ s not how much teens use apps that matters — but how they ’ re using those apps .
In essence , it ’ s quality over quantity .
Examples of quality use include a teen using multiplayer video games to socialize with their peers and build stronger friendships , the report argues .
Another example of positive tech use is when first-year college students use their smartphones to maintain close contact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report showed these students were better at bouncing back from outside stress than their peers who stayed in touch with their families less often .
The report stressed that while many families have instituted rules about how much their kids use technology , the fights parents are having with their children over this are actually making things worse .
In fact , “ conflict over screens is likely to be more harmful to adolescents ’ mental health than screen time itself , ” Common Sense ’ s report states .
While there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know about technology and its impact on teens ’ mental health , it ’ s an important issue that ’ s only become more serious during the pandemic .
That ’ s why we need better research before jumping to any conclusions .
You can read the report in full here .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As the US continues to struggle to contain the Covid-19 pandemic and social distancing recommendations remain in place, millions of US children and adolescents aren’t expected to attend school in-person in the fall — meaning they’ll often be stuck inside their homes and using the internet as a primary means of human connection. The situation has resurfaced a long-standing, difficult-to-answer question: Is technology going to ruin my teenager’s brain?
For years, some have blamed the growing rate of teenagers suffering from mental health issues in the US on the drastic increase in how much they’re engaging with digital devices compared to previous generations — but there isn’t much hard evidence to back up those claims.
It’s true that we’re seeing unprecedented levels of teenagers using digital devices — some 95 percent of US teens have access to a smartphone, and 45 percent say they are online “almost constantly,” according to a 2018 Pew poll. And during the same period of time that internet and smartphone use has increased for a generation of young people, the suicide rate in the US has also steadily increased (across all ages overall), with a disproportionate increase in the rate of tween girls aged 10 to 14 in particular.
But the rise of teenagers’ use of social media at the same time that depression rates have been going up shows correlation, not causation. Meaning, there’s no evidence to prove that teenagers’ use of social media is why we’re seeing this increase in depression instead of any number of other confounding factors — like their family life, economic conditions, or anything else. To know if that’s the case or not, we need a lot more comprehensive research that isolates these other factors.
Considering how high the stakes are, answering this question is important — and pressing.
A new report from the nonprofit Common Sense Media, a national advocacy group focused on digital access and safety for children and families, reflects the urgency and state of the conversation. The report, written by UC Irvine child psychology professor Candice Odgers and Common Sense research director Michael Robb, attempted to review the existing research about the effects of tech use on teens, draw conclusions about the overall risks and benefits, and suggest recommendations for parents, educators, and the public. But one of the biggest conclusions from Common Sense’s report is that the existing research doesn’t tell us enough, and we need more refined scientific evidence to know anything conclusive about the effects of social media on teenagers’ mental health.
In the meantime, it’s important to understand what the concerns around the impact of social media on teenage mental health are — and what to consider when it comes to figuring out how to help teens have a balanced relationship with technology, especially while living through a pandemic.
The concern: “Our kids are walking around with slot machines in their pockets”
Jennifer Siebel Newsom, first partner to California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, who contributed an essay to the report, wrote that she understands digital devices like tablets and laptops are necessary tools for getting an education during Covid-19 school shutdowns. But she says she’s also worried about the effects of these devices on children and teens’ mental health.
“[A]s a mom, I can’t ignore the reality in my home. Distance learning for my four kids this spring opened the floodgates to media and its adverse effects. What started with using Zoom and Gmail for homework assignments became internet searches bringing up age-inappropriate information — and misinformation,” wrote Siebel Newsom. “All of a sudden my eldest were sneaking off to their rooms, or hiding devices under their beds at night.”
Both Siebel Newsom and others who contributed to the report, like former Democratic presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang, want to see technology and media companies accept more responsibility for their impact on children, even if we don’t yet have research showing exactly what that impact is. Yang, in particular, called for the government to drastically fund more research and step in, if needed, to incentivize tech companies to educate children, rather than entertain them, to collect ad dollars. (The children’s digital advertising market is expected to be worth $1.7 billion by 2021, according to a report from PwC.)
“Right now, the interests of parents are directly at odds with the interests of the technology companies,” wrote Yang. “They’re monetizing our attention and profiting off of our time. As they say, the addictive nature of smartphones is a feature, not a bug. We parents are outgunned and at a total loss.”
Newsom’s and Yang’s comments draw on much larger anxieties in the American public about what kids are doing with their time online and how this will impact their development.
The evidence is inconclusive and more research is needed
So, while there’s no shortage of concern about how much time adolescents are spending on their phones, what does the research actually say?
Unfortunately, not enough for us to draw any quantitative, evidence-based conclusions — and that’s why we should start doing more research in earnest now. The report’s meta-analysis of the most up-to-date research on social media and depression revealed a mix of “small positive, negative, and mostly neutral” links between adolescents’ use of technology like social media and their mental health.
Authors of the report looked at two large-scale reviews of existing research on the topic published earlier this year and found results associating adolescents’ mental health and use of digital technology “inconsistent” — even when an association was present, it accounted for less than 1 percent of the variation.
This failure to find a stronger link between teen depression and technology use “is not surprising,” Odgers and Robb write, “given that mental health disorders emerge from a complex set of social, genetic, and experiential factors, which have varying influence across development and situations.” Still, “small effects can be meaningful,” the report states, “but with existing evidence we have no way to separate cause from effect in social media research with adolescents.”
If researchers wanted to actually separate cause from effect, we would need research that asks more specific questions and is backed by harder data, as my Vox colleague Brian Resnick has previously explained. Self-reported surveys on teens’ well-being can be biased — so another option would be for scientists to use brain scans showing neurological development over time to track the tangible effects of social media on children’s well-being.
While there is at least one large study like this underway, funded by the National Institutes of Health, it will be several years before we see its results. Until then, researchers are asking for more granular data from companies like Apple and Google to help them understand exactly how kids are using their devices. Are they bingeing on Fortnite or watching educational YouTube videos? So far, tech companies like Apple largely haven’t given researchers the option to see people’s screen-time data that shows how much they use different apps on their phones — even with their consent.
With all this in mind, the report calls for the government and other groups to fund more research on this topic.
Recommendations: Quality over quantity
While the jury’s still out on exactly how social media impacts teens, the report does offer some child psychologist-backed recommendations for teen tech use.
An important one: It’s not how much teens use apps that matters but how they’re using those apps. In essence, it’s quality over quantity. Examples of quality use include a teen using multiplayer video games to socialize with their peers and build stronger friendships, the report argues. Another example of positive tech use is when first-year college students use their smartphones to maintain close contact with their parents. One study cited in the report showed these students were better at bouncing back from outside stress than their peers who stayed in touch with their families less often.
The report stressed that while many families have instituted rules about how much their kids use technology, the fights parents are having with their children over this are actually making things worse. In fact, “conflict over screens is likely to be more harmful to adolescents’ mental health than screen time itself,” Common Sense’s report states.
While there’s a lot we still don’t know about technology and its impact on teens’ mental health, it’s an important issue that’s only become more serious during the pandemic. That’s why we need better research before jumping to any conclusions.
You can read the report in full here.


vox--2020-07-29--Jeff Bezos’s antitrust grilling was a reminder of Amazon’s power over its sellers

The world ’ s richest man , Jeff Bezos , testified before US Congress members for the first time on Wednesday , but he said little to assuage one of their biggest concerns : that Amazon ’ s grip on online retail gives it the power to make or break small merchants on a whim .
Bezos , along with the CEOs of Apple , Google , and Facebook , appeared via videoconference before a bipartisan group of 15 US House members who have been investigating the four tech giants over the last year .
The stated goal of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to document whether these corporate titans abuse their power in industries ranging from retail to social networking , and to evaluate whether the country ’ s antitrust laws are modern enough to guard against such abuses .
“ Their ability to dictate terms , call the shots , upend entire sectors , and inspire fear represent the powers of a private government , ” Rep. David Cicilline ( D-RI ) , the chair of the subcommittee , said in his opening remarks at what was a five-plus hour hearing .
For Bezos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how Amazon competes against , and profits from , the 1.7 million small- and mid-sized merchants who help stock Amazon ’ s digital shelves .
Amazon boasts that 60 percent of its retail sales now come courtesy of these sellers , rather than from Amazon stocking and reselling goods itself .
But some Amazon sellers have complained over the years that as Amazon ’ s market share in US online commerce has increased — to about 40 percent today , which is about seven times more than the next competitor — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in new and different ways because they have no viable online alternatives .
According to Cicilline , Amazon sellers have told the subcommittee that “ [ Amazon has ] never been a great partner , but you have to work with them.
” One concern has been the data Amazon uses from its own merchants to help inform what products to develop under its own private-label brands , such as Amazon Basics .
In April , the Wall Street Journal published a report stating that Amazon employees have used data from individual sellers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pursue .
That contradicts what a top Amazon lawyer , Nate Sutton , told Congress earlier this year when he said that Amazon ’ s policy is to only use data on a product when there are at least two sellers selling it .
On Wednesday , Bezos told Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-WA ) , who represents Amazon ’ s hometown of Seattle , that the company ’ s investigation into violations of the policy outlined in the Journal report was ongoing .
“ I ’ m not satisfied that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we ’ ll keep looking at it , ” he said .
And Jayapal made her point clear : “ So you might allow third-party sellers onto your platform .
But if you ’ re monitoring the data to make sure that they ’ re never going to get big enough that they can compete with you , that is the concern that the committee has.
” Bezos argued that other retailers don ’ t even have such a policy , which is completely beside the point — no other US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the size of Amazon ’ s .
But worse , Bezos not providing an update on the investigation just means that the concern over these potentially anticompetitive practices remains unsettled .
The lawmakers also questioned Bezos on what some view as an increasing cut of sales that Amazon takes from small merchants .
According to a recent study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance , a nonprofit that advocates for a strong economy built on independent businesses versus giant corporations , Amazon collected 30 percent in fees on average in 2019 from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That number was up from 19 percent five years earlier , according to the ILSR estimates .
Some sellers have said Amazon ’ s cut is even higher than that .
In an episode of the Land of the Giants : The Rise of Amazon podcast last summer , one Amazon toy seller told Recode that Amazon now collects fees that equate to nearly half of each of his company ’ s sales , when including the cost to advertise his products on the site .
Bezos ’ s defense of these increases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is providing in exchange for these fees .
The CEO talked up Amazon ’ s advertising platform as a way for businesses to get discovered — but some sellers and brands see it more as a tax simply to do business on the platform .
But the CEO did little to put to rest the open question of whether small businesses on Amazon can be successful without giving his company a bigger and bigger cut of their earnings .
Bezos also mentioned how Amazon ’ s warehousing program Fulfillment by Amazon ( FBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ship , and have customer service taken care of , through Amazon .
In order for most sellers to qualify their goods for Amazon Prime delivery , they have to pay for FBA storage .
And Bezos admitted that Amazon ’ s algorithm that determines in real time which seller wins a given sale , indirectly factors in whether a seller is a customer of FBA .
This admission could offer additional ammunition to critics who argue that Amazon is using its control over the largest US e-commerce marketplace to essentially force its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services , such as FBA .
Then there ’ s the frequency with which Amazon changes its policies and the algorithms that power its platform in ways that can make or break its merchants ’ businesses , essentially overnight .
One Congress member told Bezos the story of a textbook seller on Amazon who says her business was kicked off of the platform without notice or explanation after her business had grown large .
Seemingly arbitrary suspensions by Amazon are not a new complaint .
Bezos said he was “ surprised ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would like to speak to the seller .
But he also countered with a defense that he believes such treatment is not “ systemic ” at Amazon .
For Bezos , this was his first time testifying on Capitol Hill , at least in part because Amazon has , for the most part , been a good thing for millions of online shoppers .
As I ’ ve written before , Amazon offers buyers incredible convenience , good prices , fast delivery , and a vast selection .
And US antitrust enforcers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and keep prices low , while typically targeting business practices or mergers that they believe will harm consumers , such as by raising prices for a product or service .
But Amazon is now worth $ 1.5 trillion , and Bezos is the world ’ s richest man .
Along the way , media and regulatory scrutiny has intensified .
The Federal Trade Commission has been probing various Amazon business practices over the last year to see if Amazon has violated existing antitrust laws .
And the House antitrust subcommittee will next issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could argue for new or modified antitrust legislation that can account for the harm to innovation and competition that some legislators say is done by tech giants like Amazon , even while they seemingly treat consumers well .
Even if Bezos didn ’ t shut down lawmakers concerns about potentially anticompetitive practices , his first Congressional testimony at times came across as the most authentic of the CEOs at the hearing .
At the same time , he on several occasions politely dismissed anecdotal seller complaints presented during the hearing as one-offs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s DNA .
And therein lies one of his problems .
Even if Bezos is right and Amazon only rarely abuses its position over its own sellers , the complaints shared during the hearing show that the company has grown so big and powerful that even abuses of neglect have the power to crush the small businesses that power Amazon ’ s success — but also are so dependent on the platform that it can crush them without even noticing .

The world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, testified before US Congress members for the first time on Wednesday, but he said little to assuage one of their biggest concerns: that Amazon’s grip on online retail gives it the power to make or break small merchants on a whim.
Bezos, along with the CEOs of Apple, Google, and Facebook, appeared via videoconference before a bipartisan group of 15 US House members who have been investigating the four tech giants over the last year. The stated goal of this antitrust subcommittee’s investigation has been to document whether these corporate titans abuse their power in industries ranging from retail to social networking, and to evaluate whether the country’s antitrust laws are modern enough to guard against such abuses.
“Their ability to dictate terms, call the shots, upend entire sectors, and inspire fear represent the powers of a private government,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), the chair of the subcommittee, said in his opening remarks at what was a five-hour-plus hearing.
For Bezos, much of the questioning from lawmakers focused on how Amazon competes against, and profits from, the 1.7 million small and mid-sized merchants who help stock Amazon’s digital shelves. Amazon boasts that 60 percent of its retail sales now come courtesy of these sellers rather than from Amazon stocking and reselling goods itself.
But some Amazon sellers have complained over the years that as Amazon’s market share in US online commerce has increased — to about 40 percent today, which is about seven times more than the next competitor — the company has squeezed and otherwise harmed them in new and different ways because they have no viable online alternatives.
According to Cicilline, Amazon sellers have told the subcommittee that “[Amazon has] never been a great partner, but you have to work with them.”
One concern has been the data Amazon uses from its own merchants to help inform what products to develop under its own private-label brands, such as Amazon Basics. In April, the Wall Street Journal published a report stating that Amazon employees have used data from individual sellers to help Amazon decide which private-label products to pursue. That contradicts what a top Amazon lawyer, Nate Sutton, told Congress earlier this year when he said that Amazon’s policy is to only use data on a product when there are at least two sellers selling it.
On Wednesday, Bezos told Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who represents Amazon’s hometown of Seattle, that the company’s investigation into violations of the policy outlined in the Journal report was ongoing. “I’m not satisfied that we have gotten to the bottom of it, and we’ll keep looking at it,” he said.
And Jayapal made her point clear: “So you might allow third-party sellers onto your platform. But if you’re monitoring the data to make sure that they’re never going to get big enough that they can compete with you, that is the concern that the committee has.”
Bezos argued that other retailers don’t even have such a policy, which is completely beside the point — no other US retailer operates a marketplace even close to the size of Amazon’s. But worse, Bezos not providing an update on the investigation just means that the concern over these potentially anti-competitive practices remains unsettled.
The lawmakers also questioned Bezos on what some view as an increasing cut of sales that Amazon takes from small merchants. According to a recent study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit that advocates for a strong economy built on independent businesses versus giant corporations, Amazon collected 30 percent in fees on average in 2019 from a given sale that a seller made. That number was up from 19 percent five years earlier, according to the ILSR estimates. Some sellers have said Amazon’s cut is even higher than that. In an episode of the Land of the Giants: The Rise of Amazon podcast last summer, one Amazon toy seller told Recode that Amazon now collects fees that equate to nearly half of each of his company’s sales, when including the cost to advertise his products on the site.
Bezos’s defense of these increases centered on the value he says Amazon is providing in exchange for these fees. The CEO talked up Amazon’s advertising platform as a way for businesses to get discovered — but some sellers and brands see the cost as a tax that has to be paid in order to do business on the platform. The CEO did little to put to rest the open question of whether small businesses on Amazon can be successful without giving his company a bigger and bigger cut of their earnings.
Bezos also mentioned how Amazon’s warehousing program Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) allows merchants to store, ship, and have customer service taken care of through Amazon. In order for most sellers to qualify their goods for Amazon Prime delivery, they have to pay for FBA storage. And Bezos admitted that Amazon’s algorithm that determines in real time which seller wins a given sale indirectly factors in whether a seller is a customer of FBA. This admission could offer additional ammunition to critics who argue that Amazon is using its control over the largest US e-commerce marketplace to essentially force its merchants into paying for more and more services, such as FBA.
Then there’s the frequency with which Amazon changes its policies and the algorithms that power its platform in ways that can make or break its merchants’ businesses, essentially overnight. One Congress member told Bezos the story of a textbook seller on Amazon who says her business was kicked off of the platform without notice or explanation after her business had grown large. Seemingly arbitrary suspensions by Amazon are not a new complaint.
Bezos said he was “surprised” to hear about such a story and that he would like to speak to the seller. But he also countered with a defense that he believes such treatment is not “systemic” at Amazon.
For Bezos, this was his first time testifying on Capitol Hill, at least in part because Amazon has, for the most part, been a good thing for millions of online shoppers. As I’ve written before, Amazon offers buyers incredible convenience, good prices, fast delivery, and a vast selection. And US antitrust enforcers tend to favor companies that treat consumers well and keep prices low, while typically targeting business practices or mergers that they believe will harm consumers, such as by raising prices for a product or service.
But Amazon is now worth $1.5 trillion, and Bezos is the world’s richest man. Along the way, media and regulatory scrutiny has intensified. The Federal Trade Commission has been probing various Amazon business practices over the last year to see if Amazon has violated existing antitrust laws. And the House antitrust subcommittee will next issue its own report concluding its investigation that could argue for new or modified antitrust legislation that can account for the harm to innovation and competition that some legislators say is done by tech giants like Amazon, even while they seemingly treat consumers well.
Even if Bezos didn’t shut down lawmakers’ concerns about potentially anti-competitive practices, his first congressional testimony at times came across as the most authentic of the CEOs at the hearing. At the same time, on several occasions he politely dismissed anecdotal seller complaints presented during the hearing as one-offs rather than being core to Amazon’s DNA.
And therein lies one of his problems. Even if Bezos is right and Amazon only rarely abuses its position over its own sellers, the complaints shared during the hearing show that the company has grown so big and powerful that even abuses of neglect have the power to crush the small businesses that power Amazon’s success — but also are so dependent on the platform that it can crush them without even noticing.


vox--2020-07-29--Republicans showed why Congress won’t regulate the internet

Wednesday ’ s congressional antitrust hearing was a historic occasion , offering Congress a chance to grill four of the most powerful men in the world , who control four companies — Facebook , Apple , Amazon , and Google — each so massive that they rival nation-states in their power .
Observers have grown increasingly concerned about the unprecedented and outsized impact of these companies on the economy , the millions of American citizens who use their products , and the thousands of smaller businesses that try , often unsuccessfully , to compete with them .
But the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on one specific thing : unfounded claims that tech companies are biased against conservatives .
“ I will just cut to the chase .
Big tech is out to get conservatives .
That ’ s not a suspicion , that ’ s not a hunch , that ’ s a fact , ” said Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) , who from the onset of the hearing led Republicans on the committee in questions about anti-conservative bias .
At one point , he repeatedly yelled at a Democratic colleague , Rep. Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he took offense to her implication that his focus on anti-conservative bias was promoting “ fringe conspiracy theories.
” It ’ s not surprising that many Republican committee members chose to focus on supposed tech bias .
But it is a significant distraction from what really matters : whether tech companies have used their power to crush their competition and exploit users ’ online behavior and data in a manner that hurts Americans of all political persuasions .
Allegations that social media platforms have an anti-conservative bias has for years been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican party .
And leading up to Wednesday , Republicans attacked the focus of the Democrat-run House Judiciary subcommittee hearing — calling on it to focus more on anti-conservative bias and for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear .
Twitter is a small company compared to , say , Facebook , but it has recently taken measures to moderate President Trump ’ s posts for violating policies around misinformation and hate speech , enraging Republicans .
Democrats , meanwhile , tried to steer the conversation back to issues more directly relevant to antitrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidate their competition , such as when Facebook acquired its then-rival Instagram in 2012 ; or whether these companies exploit their users ’ privacy , like how Google tracks individuals ’ online browsing across the web with cookies ; or if Apple is shutting out its competitors by taking an unreasonable cut of profits coming in from independent app developers in its App Store .
What really matters here is whether these companies ’ business practices are ultimately harming consumers , most of whom have no choice but to use Big Tech in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do basic things online like search the web , order goods , or stay in touch with their friends .
In an earlier era , Republicans and Democrats on the committee might have come together to try to focus on what ’ s been seen as an area of relative bipartisan agreement : protecting the free market .
That didn ’ t happen at today ’ s hearing .
Instead , it was a display of partisan divides .
While it ’ s true that many rank-and-file corporate employees at Facebook , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be college-educated individuals living in major metropolitan areas — identify as politically liberal , like many others in their demographic , there ’ s no definitive proof that Facebook , YouTube , Google , or any other major tech platform discriminates against conservative content .
In their testimony , Republicans at Wednesday ’ s hearing cited investigations from right-wing news outlets and groups , like Project Veritas and Breitbart News , but at most , these sources seem to indicate that many Big Tech employees hold liberal political beliefs — a phenomenon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Historically , the types of content and pages that consistently perform well on Facebook are often right-leaning news and pundit pages , like Breitbart News and Ben Shapiro .
And as my colleague Peter Kafka wrote this spring , these same tech companies often face criticism from Democrats over how their platforms incentivize users to post polarizing and politically extreme content because their algorithms prioritize engagement — and polarizing content is good at getting users to engage with it .
After Jordan used his initial allotted round of time for questioning Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( based on leaked emails from a former Google marketing executive which said the company used its products to reach Latinos with voting information in the 2016 presidential election ) , he twice interrupted Democratic colleague Rep. Mary Scanlon ( D-PA ) to yell at her across the floor — initiating a screaming match with Democratic subcommittee chairman David Cicilline , who tried to maintain order .
Jordan reacted this way after Scanlon said she would like to focus her questioning back on antitrust issues instead of what she called “ fringe conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for order — and after another person on the congressional floor , unidentifiable from the livestream , yelled at Jordan to “ put your mask on !
” — Jordan let up and let Scanlon continue questioning Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos with her allotted time .
The entire debacle was another reminder that today ’ s hearing is mostly a political spectacle , a moment primed for soundbites , and many Republicans at the hearing chose to use their time with these powerful company leaders to promote their own political agendas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t expected to directly lead to antitrust action , but they can help set the stage for that when politicians strategically use their time to extract answers from leaders with pointed — and unified — lines of questioning .
Ranking Republican James Sensenbrenner did offer a narrow window of measured optimism for bipartisan cooperation toward the end of the hearing .
He said that antitrust probes hold a meaningful and historic place in American government but that , in the case of tech , regulators need to revisit old decisions and step up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole new set of rules .
But largely , Sensenbrenner ’ s Republican colleagues were uninterested in discussing antitrust issues , under new or existing laws alike .
As one Democratic congressional staffer told Recode , Republicans seemed more interested in creating explosive confrontations by decrying alleged “ liberal bias ” that are made-for-replay on conservative cable TV ( indeed , Jordan ’ s clips have already been a subject of discussion on Fox News ) .
Today ’ s hearing was a sign that in the current hyper-polarized political climate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any real , meaningful , bipartisan legislative effort to rein in Big Tech anytime soon .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Wednesday’s congressional antitrust hearing was a historic occasion, offering Congress a chance to grill four of the most powerful men in the world, who control four companies — Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google — each so massive that they rival nation-states in their power. Observers have grown increasingly concerned about the unprecedented and outsized impact of these companies on the economy, the millions of American citizens who use their products, and the thousands of smaller businesses that try, often unsuccessfully, to compete with them.
But the Republican members of the hearing instead primarily focused on one specific thing: unfounded claims that tech companies are biased against conservatives.
“I will just cut to the chase. Big tech is out to get conservatives. That’s not a suspicion, that’s not a hunch, that’s a fact,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who from the onset of the hearing led Republicans on the committee in questions about anti-conservative bias. At one point, he repeatedly yelled at a Democratic colleague, Rep. Mary Scanlon, interrupting her allotted questioning time because he took offense to her implication that his focus on anti-conservative bias was promoting “fringe conspiracy theories.”
It’s not surprising that many Republican committee members chose to focus on supposed tech bias. But it is a significant distraction from what really matters: whether tech companies have used their power to crush their competition and exploit users’ online behavior and data in a manner that hurts Americans of all political persuasions.
Allegations that social media platforms have an anti-conservative bias has for years been a rallying cry of President Trump and the Republican party. And leading up to Wednesday, Republicans attacked the focus of the Democrat-run House Judiciary subcommittee hearing — calling on it to focus more on anti-conservative bias and for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear. Twitter is a small company compared to, say, Facebook, but it has recently taken measures to moderate President Trump’s posts for violating policies around misinformation and hate speech, enraging Republicans.
Democrats, meanwhile, tried to steer the conversation back to issues more directly relevant to antitrust, like if and how these companies intimidate their competition, such as when Facebook acquired its then-rival Instagram in 2012; or whether these companies exploit their users’ privacy, like how Google tracks individuals’ online browsing across the web with cookies; or if Apple is shutting out its competitors by taking an unreasonable cut of profits coming in from independent app developers in its App Store.
What really matters here is whether these companies’ business practices are ultimately harming consumers, most of whom have no choice but to use Big Tech in one way or another if they want to do basic things online like search the web, order goods, or stay in touch with their friends.
In an earlier era, Republicans and Democrats on the committee might have come together to try to focus on what’s been seen as an area of relative bipartisan agreement: protecting the free market. That didn’t happen at today’s hearing. Instead, it was a display of partisan divides.
While it’s true that many rank-and-file corporate employees at Facebook, Google, and Apple — who tend to be college-educated individuals living in major metropolitan areas — identify as politically liberal, like many others in their demographic, there’s no definitive proof that Facebook, YouTube, Google, or any other major tech platform discriminates against conservative content.
In their testimony, Republicans at Wednesday’s hearing cited investigations from right-wing news outlets and groups, like Project Veritas and Breitbart News, but at most, these sources seem to indicate that many Big Tech employees hold liberal political beliefs — a phenomenon that is neither illegal nor inherently conspiratorial.
Historically, the types of content and pages that consistently perform well on Facebook are often right-leaning news and pundit pages, like Breitbart News and Ben Shapiro. And as my colleague Peter Kafka wrote this spring, these same tech companies often face criticism from Democrats over how their platforms incentivize users to post polarizing and politically extreme content because their algorithms prioritize engagement — and polarizing content is good at getting users to engage with it.
After Jordan used his initial allotted round of time for questioning Google CEO Sundar Pichai about alleged anti-conservative bias (based on leaked emails from a former Google marketing executive which said the company used its products to reach Latinos with voting information in the 2016 presidential election), he twice interrupted Democratic colleague Rep. Mary Scanlon (D-PA) to yell at her across the floor — initiating a screaming match with Democratic subcommittee chairman David Cicilline, who tried to maintain order.
Jordan reacted this way after Scanlon said she would like to focus her questioning back on antitrust issues instead of what she called “fringe conspiracy theories.” After Cicilline’s repeated calls for order — and after another person on the congressional floor, unidentifiable from the livestream, yelled at Jordan to “put your mask on!” — Jordan let up and let Scanlon continue questioning Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos with her allotted time.
The entire debacle was another reminder that today’s hearing is mostly a political spectacle, a moment primed for soundbites, and many Republicans at the hearing chose to use their time with these powerful company leaders to promote their own political agendas. Congressional hearings like this one aren’t expected to directly lead to antitrust action, but they can help set the stage for that when politicians strategically use their time to extract answers from leaders with pointed — and unified — lines of questioning.
Ranking Republican James Sensenbrenner did offer a narrow window of measured optimism for bipartisan cooperation toward the end of the hearing. He said that antitrust probes hold a meaningful and historic place in American government but that, in the case of tech, regulators need to revisit old decisions and step up enforcement of existing laws rather than write a whole new set of rules.
But largely, Sensenbrenner’s Republican colleagues were uninterested in discussing antitrust issues, under new or existing laws alike. As one Democratic congressional staffer told Recode, Republicans seemed more interested in creating explosive confrontations by decrying alleged “liberal bias” that are made-for-replay on conservative cable TV (indeed, Jordan’s clips have already been a subject of discussion on Fox News). Today’s hearing was a sign that in the current hyper-polarized political climate, it’s unlikely Congress will lead any real, meaningful, bipartisan legislative effort to rein in Big Tech anytime soon.