The companies that do most to develop and evolve the LibreOffice productivity suite, both for desktop and cloud, say the project’s business model is “beyond utterly broken” and that The Document Foundation (TDF), the charity that hosts the project, has to change its approach.

The matter is a subject of intense debate within the board of the foundation, set up in 2010 to oversee LibreOffice, a fork of Oracle’s OpenOffice. It touches on a question that crops up repeatedly in various contexts: as usage of open-source software continues to grow, what is the right business model to fund its development?

The TDF’s manifesto promises “to eliminate the digital divide in society by giving everyone access to office productivity tools free of charge.” The document adds that “we encourage corporate participation” but there is nothing about providing an incentive for such companies.

Michael Meeks, managing director at Cambridge-based Collabora, the company that contributes most full-time developers to LibreOffice, has set out the situation in (opinionated) detail here and here.

Meeks is an open-source veteran, having worked on GNOME, OpenOffice, and other prominent projects. Everything was fine at LibreOffice to begin with, and he calls 2012-2014 “the flourishing years.”

Alongside Collabora, there were 15 developers from SUSE, five from Red Hat, one from Canonical, seven from the city of Munich (part of its embrace of open source), and some 40 others from various companies. Many of those have now dropped out, or reduced their commitment, leaving around 40 paid developers in total – of whom Collabora provides 25 and CIB, a Munich-based specialist in document management, seven.

Meeks believes “LibreOffice is at serious risk,” though the matter is complex. TDF has around €1.5m in the bank, Meeks said, but something that may surprise outsiders is that the foundation cannot and does not use that money to employ developers.

Thorsten Behrens, IT lead for LibreOffice at CIB, told The Register: “The TDF is a charity; it’s not in the business of developing software and actually cannot, because that would put it in competition with the commercial ecosystem,” as well as threatening its charitable status.

Most donations go to TDF so if the commercial providers of developers reduce their commitment, TDF remains but the development effort diminishes.

This also means that contributing to LibreOffice by paying for support is currently more effective than donating money to TDF.

Could LibreOffice succeed without paid-for developers?

Behrens pointed to Apache OpenOffice as an example of why this does not work. “It is limping,” he said. “Every two years they release a new version, but everyone who cares moved on to LibreOffice. OpenOffice is the best argument that we have that we need a commercial ecosystem. If we don’t have that, we will end up like them.”

[…]

Source: Company that contributes majority of LibreOffice code complains ecosystem is ‘beyond utterly broken’ • The Register

In 2017 I spoke about this – it’s a tough nut to crack, because there are open source fanatics – who just happen to be paid to develop and promote open source – who keep holding onto a definition of “open source” developed in the 70s. Open source projects are much more complex than they were then, have a much larger user base and require much more coordination from people who aren’t being paid (by a university or foundation) to develop them.

On July 27th, the CEOs of Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google — the “GAFA” companies — will testify in front of the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. Getting those four people into the same room — even virtually — on the same day is something of a feat and it speaks to how seriously these companies are taking the committee’s long-standing investigation into their practices.

In June last year, the House Judiciary Committee launched a bipartisan investigation into competition in “digital markets.” It said that a “small number of dominant, unregulated platforms,” hold “extraordinary power” over e-commerce, online communication and digital information. It added that this power has a stifling effect on competition and entrepreneurship in both the US and the wider world.

Each CEO will need to explain how their monolithic platforms, like Facebook’s social network, Google’s advertising business and Apple’s App Store, do not violate antitrust law. “Antitrust” is shorthand for the rules around businesses stifling competition in a free and fair market. That includes blocking powerful companies from buying up, copying or pricing out their rivals to the detriment of competition. Regulators are now turning their beady eye toward what ‘big tech’ has been up to for all of these years.

“Both Democrats and Republicans do seem to believe that there’s something wrong with how these big tech companies are operating.” Joel Mitnick is an antitrust lawyer at Cadwalader in New York who began his career as a trial lawyer at the Federal Trade Commission. He says that lawmakers suspect that there’s “something abusive going on terms of their market power.” He added that there’s a belief that these companies are blocking, or excluding, competitors.

As well as these hearings, it’s likely that Google is going to face a separate antitrust lawsuit that’ll be filed towards the end of 2020.  The Wall Street Journal said a cadre of attorneys general want to scrutinize Google’s online advertising business. Apple looks like it’ll be next on the block, with a Politico report from last month saying that Apple’s “easy ride” from lawmakers is coming to an end. It contends that Apple’s control of the app store, and how it treats competing apps from rival developers within its ecosystem, is under quiet scrutiny.

News of a potential US probe into Apple came roughly a week after the European Union began its own investigation. EU officials are investigating whether Apple’s control of the app store “violate EU competition rules,” because you can only buy system apps from the App Store. The fact that apps that offer in-app purchases can only do so through Apple’s system, earning the latter 30 percent commission, is also under scrutiny.

The ultimate goal of any antitrust investigation is to promote competition that will, it’s hoped, benefit the consumer. Critics believe that Apple’s control of the App Store stifles competition and, by extension, is ultimately harmful to consumers. They believe that Apple is essentially creating a market that forces people to use Apple’s own products and services.

The obvious example is the App Store, which is the only way for developers to get their software onto people’s iOS, iPad OS and Watch OS devices. But look at HomePod, the Apple speaker that can only directly access Apple Music. If you want to play from Spotify or other services, you’ll have to use your phone to cast to the speaker. In late June, however, Apple said that it would open HomePod up to third-party services in the coming months as it opens up its products.

Mitnick explained that rather than simply examining companies through the lens of being a “monopolist,” you need to look at “market power.” Apple has historically eschewed being the biggest player in town in favor of catering to a smaller, premium segment of the market. And in consumer technology, there is a wide variety of cheaper products available from its bigger, albeit potentially less profitable, rivals.

But that’s not the case with the iOS ecosystem.  In the US, StatCounter says that iOS has around 58 percent of the market compared to Android’s 41 percent. iPad OS, the tablet-friendly version of iOS, is even more dominant in the US, with StatCounter reporting close to 65 percent of the market. It’s not a monopoly, but Apple appears to be the dominant player in the US.

And, says Mitnick, when a company gets that big “they lose the right to be so exclusionary,” essentially that with great power comes an obligation to be even more scrupulous. After all, if officials can demonstrate in a court that the App Store rules are boxing out developers and stifling competition, they could insist on radical changes. Or, they could decide that buying an Android phone offers enough of an alternative, and that Apple isn’t doing anything wrong.

Apple’s counter-argument to this is that it has done plenty to create a level playing field for its rivals. It charges just a $99 flat fee to any app developer and only asks for a 30-percent cut of any qualifying transaction. (That includes digital goods within the app or subscriptions, although that fee falls to 15 percent in subsequent years.) So long as apps don’t contravene Apple’s own rules, or break the law then developers have carte blanche to do whatever they want. And, right now, the arrangement benefits iPhone/iPad/Watch users who can count on secure apps that have been vetted by Apple.

[…]

Source: Big tech’s reckoning starts with an antitrust committee | Engadget

Let’s be clear – a 30% cut AND a flat fee is a mafia type ripoff only monopolies and the taxman can pull off.

I spoke about this in Zagreb in 2019 and it’s fun to see it all happening.

I’ve used a Samsung Galaxy smartphone almost every day for nearly 4 years. I used them because Samsung had fantastic hardware that was matched by (usually) excellent software. But in 2020, a Samsung phone is no longer my daily driver, and there’s one simple reason that’s the case: Ads.

Ads Everywhere

Ads in Samsung phones never really bothered me, at least not until the past few months. It started with the Galaxy Z Flip. A tweet from Todd Haselton of CNBC, embedded below, is what really caught my eye. Samsung had put an ad from DirectTV in the stock dialer app. This is really something I never would have expected from any smartphone company, let alone Samsung.

Samsung has ads in the phone app — the app you open to place calls — on its $1,380 Galaxy Z Flip. 🙄 pic.twitter.com/tuWr2PxSYh

— Todd Haselton (@robotodd) February 18, 2020

It showed up in the “Places” tab in the dialer app, which is in partnership with Yelp and lets you search for different businesses directly from the dialer app so you don’t need to Google somewhere to find the address or phone number. I looked into it, to see if this was maybe a mistake on Yelp’s part, accidentally displaying an ad where it shouldn’t have, but nope. The ad was placed by Samsung, in an area where it could blend in so they could make money.

Similar ads exist throughout a bunch of Samsung apps. Samsung Music has ads that look like another track in your library. Samsung Health and Samsung Pay have banners for promotional ads. The stock weather app has ads that look like they could be news. There is also more often very blatant advertising in most of these apps as well.

Samsung Music will give you a popup ad for Sirius XM, even though Spotify is built into the Samsung Music app. You can hide the SiriusXM popup, but only for 7 days at a time. A week later, it will be right back there waiting for you. Samsung will also give you push notification ads for new products from Bixby, Samsung Pay, and Samsung Push Service.

Got this on my Note9. Not sure if it’s because my Note9 thinks it’s a Note10 or if it’s an ad. pic.twitter.com/CeD2KfmidE

— Max Weinbach (@MaxWinebach) August 9, 2019

Are you kidding me… pic.twitter.com/hRV0aU9B3H

— Max Weinbach (@MaxWinebach) June 21, 2020

If you’re wondering which Samsung apps have ads, I’ve listed all the ones I’ve seen ads in and ad-less alternatives to them below.

• Samsung Phone – Google Phone Port
• Galaxy Store – Aurora Store
• Samsung Health – Google Fit
• Samsung Pay – Google Pay
• Samsung Weather – Geometric Weather
• Bixby – Google Assistant
• Samsung Music – TimberX

Why are there even ads in the first place?

To really understand Samsung’s absurd and terrible advertising on its smartphones, you have to understand why big companies advertise. Google advertises because its “free services” still cost money to provide. The ads they serve you in Google services help cover the cost of that 15GB of storage, Google Voice phone number, unlimited Google Photos storage, and whatnot. That’s all to say there is a reason for it, you are getting something in return for those ads.

Websites and YouTube channels serve ads because the content they are providing to you for free is not free for them to make. They need to be compensated for what they are providing to you for free. Again, you are getting something for free, and serving you an ad acts as a form of payment. There was no purchase of a product, hardware or software, for you to have access to their content and services.

Even Samsung’s top-tier foldables come packed with ads.

Where it differs with Samsung is you are paying — for their hardware. My $1,980 Galaxy Fold is getting ads while using the phone as anyone normally would. While Samsung doesn’t tell us the profit margins on their products, it would not strain anybody’s imagination to suggest that these margins should be able to cover the cost of the services, tenfold. I could maybe understand having ads on the sub-$300 phones where margins are likely much lower, but I think we can all agree that a phone which costs anywhere near $1,000 (or in my case, far more) should not be riddled with advertisements. Margins should be high enough to cover these services, and if they don’t, Samsung is running a bad business.

These ads are showing up on my $1,980 Galaxy Fold, $1,380 Z Flip, $1,400 S20 Ultra, $1,200 S20+, $1,100 Note 10+, $1,000 S10+, and $750 S10e along with the $100 A10e. I can understand it on a $100 phone, but it is inexcusable to have them on a $750 phone, let alone a $1980 phone.

Every other major phone manufacturer provides basically the same services without requiring ads in their stock apps to subsidize them. OnePlus, OPPO, Huawei, and LG all have stock weather apps, payment apps, phone apps, and even health apps that don’t show ads. Sure, some of these OEMs include pre-installed bloatware, like Facebook, Spotify, and Netflix, but these can generally be disabled or uninstalled. Samsung’s ads can not (at least not fully).

When you consider that Samsung not only sells among the most expensive smartphones money can buy, but that it’s blatantly using them as an ad revenue platform, you’re left with one obvious conclusion: Samsung is getting greedy. Samsung is just being greedy. They hope most Samsung customers aren’t going to switch to other phones and will just ignore and deal with the ads. While that’s a very greedy and honestly just bad tactic, it was largely working until they started pushing it with more ads in more apps.

You can’t disable them

If you’re a Samsung user who’s read through all of this, you might be wondering “how do I shut off the ads?” The answer is, unfortunately, you (mostly) can’t.

You can disable Samsung Push Services, which is sometimes used to feed you notifications from Samsung apps. So disabling Push Services means no more push notification ads, but also no more push notifications at all in some Samsung apps.

Source: Ads are taking over Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones — and it needs to stop

Last Friday, it was reported that Canadian smart glasses startup North was on the verge of being snapped up by Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Today, it’s official.

North announced the acquisition on both Twitter and in an official blog. Details regarding the terms of the sale were scant, though a Globe and Mail scoop from Friday put the number at around $180 million. North’s remaining staff will, however, be staying in Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada and joining a Google team also based there.

“We couldn’t be more thrilled to join Google, and to take an exciting next step towards the future we’ve been focused on for the past eight years,” wrote North co-founders Stephen Lake, Matthew Bailey, and Aaron Grant in the blog.

[…]

Well, it looks like with the acquisition, we’ll never know if a Focals 2.0 would’ve fixed the problems of the original. North’s blog says the company will not only be winding down Focals 1.0, but that the Focals 2.0 will not ship. At the end of the blog, North provides an email for refund requests, and notes that customer support will continue through the end of 2020. And, if Twitter is any indication, refund emails to existing North customers have already begun hitting inboxes.

Source: Google Just Acquired Smart Glasses Startup North

Yup, this is how monopolies kill the competition.

Note, this article claims that Google was the first company with smart glasses, but I’m pretty sure that Recon Instruments would disagree – another company that was bought up.

I talked about this problem during DORS/CLUC in 2019

As advertisers pull away from Facebook to protest the social networking giant’s hands-off approach to misinformation and hate speech, the company is instituting a number of stronger policies to woo them back.

In a livestreamed segment of the company’s weekly all-hands meeting, CEO Mark Zuckerberg recapped some of the steps Facebook is already taking, and announced new measures to fight voter suppression and misinformation — although they amount to things that other social media platforms like Twitter have already enahatected and enforced in more aggressive ways.

At the heart of the policy changes is an admission that the company will continue to allow politicians and public figures to disseminate hate speech that does, in fact, violate Facebook’s own guidelines — but it will add a label to denote they’re remaining on the platform because of their “newsworthy” nature.

It’s a watered-down version of the more muscular stance that Twitter has taken to limit the ability of its network to amplify hate speech or statements that incite violence.

Zuckerberg said:

A handful of times a year, we leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies if the public interest value outweighs the risk of harm. Often, seeing speech from politicians is in the public interest, and in the same way that news outlets will report what a politician says, we think people should generally be able to see it for themselves on our platforms.

We will soon start labeling some of the content we leave up because it is deemed newsworthy, so people can know when this is the case. We’ll allow people to share this content to condemn it, just like we do with other problematic content, because this is an important part of how we discuss what’s acceptable in our society — but we’ll add a prompt to tell people that the content they’re sharing may violate our policies.

The problems with this approach are legion. Ultimately, it’s another example of Facebook’s insistence that with hate speech and other types of rhetoric and propaganda, the onus of responsibility is on the user.

Source: As advertisers revolt, Facebook commits to flagging ‘newsworthy’ political speech that violates policy | TechCrunch

Apple has said it has decided not to implement 16 web APIs in its Safari browser’s WebKit engine in part because they pose a privacy threat. Critics of the iGiant, including competitors like Google, see Apple’s stance as a defense against a competitive threat.

These APIs, developed in recent years to allow web developers to have access to capabilities available to native mobile platform coders, have the potential to be abused for device fingerprinting, a privacy-violating technique for constructing a unique identifier out of readable device characteristics that can be used for tracking individuals across websites and can be correlated to follow people across devices.

“WebKit’s first line of defense against fingerprinting is to not implement web features which increase fingerprintability and offer no safe way to protect the user,” explains the WebKit team’s recently updated post on tracking prevention.

[…]

In a message to The Register, Lukasz Olejnik, an independent researcher and consultant, characterized the decision as a win for privacy, noting that research he co-authored in 2015 and subsequently on the privacy risks of the Battery Status API and other browser fingerprinting threats helped shape Apple’s policy.

Concern about abuse of the Battery Status API, which websites and browser-based apps can use to check the battery level of a visitor’s/user’s mobile device, prompted Mozilla to remove support in October 2016. Around the same time, Apple, which had implemented the API in code but never activated it, decided not ship it.

Google meanwhile shipped the Battery Status API in Chrome 45, which debuted on July 10, 2015. Rather than removing it, the web giant in May committed to modifying it by allowing developers to disable the API with their apps and in third-party components.

Apple, trying to control its market? No!

Google engineers coincidentally are among those expressing frustration with Apple for holding the web platform back.

Apple requires that all web browsers on iOS devices use Safari’s WebKit rendering engine, which has made mobile browsers on iOS something of a monoculture: Though users may choose to run Chrome on iOS, it’s essentially Safari under the hood.

Over the past few years, Apple’s leisurely (or cautious) pace of API deployment in Safari has meant that Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) – installable web apps that run offline – haven’t worked properly on iOS devices.

As a result, web developers, particularly those interested in PWA adoption, have accused Apple of trying to hamstring web apps to protect its financial stake in native iOS apps, for which it gets a 30 per cent share of revenue through its App Store rules. Those same rules are now the subject of an EU antitrust inquiry.

[…]

Or as Ben Thompson, tech analyst for Stratechery, put it in a blog post on Monday, “Making the web less useful makes apps more useful, from which Apple can take its share; similarly, it is notable that Apple is expanding its own app install product even as it is kneecapping the industry’s.”

Asked about whether these competitive concerns have substance, Olejnik acknowledged that some people see Apple’s technical decisions in that light.

“That said, some privacy concerns are legitimate,” he said.

And for what it’s worth, the technical barriers to PWAs have been falling.

Source: Apple: We’re defending your privacy by nixing 16 browser APIs. Rivals: You mean defending your bottom line • The Register

Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and a host of other tech giants will have to pay billions of dollars in extra tax after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on a stock-option case.

America’s top court said [PDF] on Monday it will not review a decision by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals that stock-based compensation should be considered a US taxable asset.

The case concerns the tax years 2004-2007 and Intel-owned tech company Altera, which provided its employees with the ability to buy company shares at a set price in future – a common practice in the tech industry. But that benefit was not included in an accounting of an Altera subsidiary based in a Cayman Islands tax haven just prior to Intel’s purchase.

The shifting of intangible assets has become a common tax-reducing tactic by large tech companies and saves those companies billions of dollars every year that they would otherwise pay to US tax authorities.

However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) insisted that Altera’s stock-option compensation be taxed under US tax rules. Facing a massive tax bill- Altera refused to accept the rule and challenged it in court, arguing that “the amount of money at stake is enormous.”

The company accused the IRS of over-reach and claimed it had not provided sufficient evidence to prove its case. And Altera won with a unanimous decision in tax court.

But the IRS appealed and the Ninth Circuit then found in the IRS’ favor, arguing in its 2-1 decision [PDF] in June 2019 that it was “uncontroversial” that stock options should be treated as accounting costs. It then refused a request for the whole court to rehear the case. So Altera appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Big Tech weighs in

Among the companies that urged the Supreme Court to take up the case were Apple, Google and Facebook – all of which now face massive tax bills for having done exactly the same thing.

The tech giants argued that the Ninth Circuit decision threatened to ruin “the hard-won but fragile international consensus on treatment of hundreds of billions of dollars of intercompany payments.” In other words, land them with massive, unexpected tax bills.

Ranged against the tech giants were a clump of law professors who argued that the IRS was right to make stock-option compensation a taxable asset.

It’s hard to know the true impact on those companies but the bills are expected to run to billions of dollars, possibly tens of billions. But in a sign of just how big those companies have become the Supreme Court judgment had no impact on share prices this morning – Wall Street knows quite how much cash these companies are sitting on.

If that news wasn’t bad enough however, there is a bigger tax issue hovering over Big Tech: the so-called digital tax threatened by the European Union, which is also fed up with companies like Google, Apple and Facebook paying almost no tax in their countries because of creative accounting through subsidiaries.

That digital tax became more likely this month after the US walked away from discussions at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that were focused on developing a global tax agreement for digital companies.

With the OECD approach faltering, the EU has already made it clear that it will introduce its own version of a digital tax that is likely to make tech giants pay much more to countries in which they operate. Those new taxes are expected to kick in at the start of 2021.

Source: Big Tech on the hook for billions in back taxes after US Supreme Court rejects Altera stock options case hearing • The Register

The European Commission has launched two separate antitrust investigations into Apple, focused on the App Store and Apple Pay.

The executive branch of the European Union said it would consider App Store rules that force developers to use its own payment and in-app purchase system. In a press release, the Commission referenced a complaint filed by Spotify more than a year ago. At the time, CEO and founder Daniel Ek argued that the 30 percent cut that Apple takes on all transactions — including in-app purchases, which includes Free to Premium Spotify conversions — meant that it would have to raise its prices beyond those offered by Apple Music.

“To keep our price competitive for our customers, that isn’t something we can do,” he explained in a blog post. Of course, it’s possible for Spotify users to upgrade their account on a different platform, including the web. But if you try to sidestep Apple’s payment system, the company will limit your marketing and communications with customers, Elk argued. “In some cases, we aren’t even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple,” he wrote. “Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch.”

The Commission said it had completed a “preliminary investigation” and found “concerns” that discouraged competition against Apple’s own services. “Apple’s competitors have either decided to disable the in-app subscription possibility altogether or have raised their subscription prices in the app and passed on Apple’s fee to consumers,” the executive branch explained in its press release. “In both cases, they were not allowed to inform users about alternative subscription possibilities outside of the app.”

[…]

The second antitrust investigation will look at Apple Pay, which is effectively the only mobile payments solution available to iPhone and iPad users.

Following a preliminary investigation, the Commission has “concerns” that the situation is stifling competition and reducing consumer choice on the platform. Vestager noted that mobile payments will likely increase even further as European citizens looks to minimize physical contact with physical money and store clerks.

“It is important that Apple’s measures do not deny consumers the benefits of new payment technologies, including better choice, quality, innovation and competitive prices,” she argued. “I have therefore decided to take a close look at Apple’s practices regarding Apple Pay and their impact on competition.”

Source: Apple Pay and the App Store are under EU antitrust investigation | Engadget

Voor 495 euro in een private jet naar Ibiza vliegen, met 25 kilogram bagage, luxesnacks en een glaasje champagne. Dat wil de Limburgse luchtvaartondernemer Philippe Bodson vanaf 4 juli onder de naam Flying Executive in de markt zetten. Op wekelijkse basis vanuit Brussel.

Een lijnvlucht voor private jets is geen primeur in Europa. Maar de timing is wel opvallend. Met dat concept roeit Bodson, de topman van ASL Group, naar eigen zeggen tegen de stroom in. ‘Het staat haaks op alle tendensen in de luchtvaartsector, die door low cost wordt gedreven. Maar het sluit perfect aan op de nieuwe noden van het postcoronareizen.’

Bodson, die op zijn 34ste een pilotenbrevet haalde en daarna van zijn hobby zijn beroep maakte door een eigen luchtvaartbedrijf op te richten, schakelt voor de nieuwe formule twee toestellen van het type Embraer in. Dat zijn vliegtuigen met een beperkt aantal zitplaatsen (respectievelijk 30 en 42) en meer beenruimte (plus 12 centimeter) dan op een gewone lijnvlucht.

De binnenruimte in die toestellen – met één zetel links en twee zetels rechts – biedt volgens hem ook een veel betere vluchtervaring. ‘Het voordeel is dat reizigers steeds alleen of naast een bekende kunnen zitten’, zegt hij. ‘In tijden van Covid-19 geeft dat een prettiger gevoel.’

Source: Belg opent lijnvlucht met private jets naar Ibiza | De Tijd

The following report appeared on Yahoo! Finance: Privacy-focused browser Brave was found to autocomplete several websites and keywords in its address bar with an affiliate code. Shortly after a user published his findings, Brave CEO and co-founder Brendan Eich addressed the incident and called it “a mistake we’re correcting.” Eich said that while Brave is a Binance affiliate [a cryptocurrency exchange], the browser’s autocompleting feature should not have added any new affiliate codes.

“The autocomplete default was inspired by search query clientid attribution that all browsers do, but unlike keyword queries, a typed-in URL should go to the domain named, without any additions,” Eich wrote in the thread. “Sorry for this mistake — we are clearly not perfect, but we correct course quickly,” he added.
Android Police reports the mistake occured more than 10 weeks ago — and that referrer codes were also included for other cryptocurrency-related sites: The browser’s GitHub repository reveals the functionality was first added on March 25th, and the current list of sites includes Binance, Coinbase, Ledger, and Trezor. Brave Software receives a kickback for purchases/accounts made with those services — for example, Coinbase says that when you refer a new customer to the service, you can earn 50% of their fees for the first three months.

The nature of these affiliate programs also allows the referrer — in this case, Brave Software — to view some amount of data about the customers who sign up with the code. Coinbase’s program provides “direct access to your campaign’s performance data,” while Trezor offers a “detailed overview of purchases.”
Brave CEO and co-founder Brendan Eich (who also created the JavaScript programming language) tweeted, “For what it’s worth there’s a setting to disable the autocomplete defaults that add affiliate codes, in brave://settings first page. Current plan is to flip default to off as shown here. You can disable ahead of our release schedule if you want to.

“Good to hear from supporters who’ll enable it.”

Source: Brave Browser Mistake Adds Its Referrer Code For Cryptocurrency Sites – Slashdot

Three online advertisers are suing Google for allegedly violating antitrust laws by monopolizing “digital advertising markets.”

“Google leveraged its stranglehold on online search and search advertising to gain an illegal monopoly in brokering display advertising on other companies’ websites,” the marketers allege in a class-action complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was filed on behalf of Washington, D.C. tour company Grand Atlas Tours, Delray Beach, Florida-based Prana Pets (which sells herbs for dogs and cats) and the San Francisco law firm Hanson Law.

They claim Google “achieved this market dominance in part by acquiring rivals in the online advertising space, conditioning access to its search-results data and YouTube video advertising platform upon the purchase of its separate display advertising services, and ensuring those systems were not compatible with those of its competitors in online advertising.”

The complaint comes as the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general are reportedly preparing separate antitrust lawsuits against Google.

Grand Atlas Tours and the others allege that Google’s “pervasive monopoly conduct” has resulted in higher prices for advertisers and consumers, lower payments to online publishers and diminished competition in the online ad marketplace.

The complaint alleges both that Google commands a dominant position in search advertising, and that the company has leveraged its market power in search “to drive out competition in the separate market for display advertising services.”

Among other allegations, the marketers claim Google’s decision to eventually block third-party cookies in Chrome will make it “much harder for advertisers and competitors to efficiently bid on ads.”

Google said in January it plans to phase out Chrome’s support for third-party cookies within two years — a move often seen as privacy friendly, because it can prevent companies that have no relationship with consumers from tracking them. Mozilla’s Firefox, as well as Apple’s Safari, already automatically prevent ad-tech companies from using cookies to track people around the web in order to serve them targeted ads.

Source: Marketers Bring Antitrust Suit Against Google 06/02/2020

I’ve been talking about this happening since May 2019 and it’s becoming more and more common

Expedia Group’s new CEO isn’t mincing words about one of the company’s biggest challenges: Google’s dual role as a rival in online travel, and a key source of customers through search traffic and paid advertising.

“I think Google’s a problem — it’s a problem for everyone who sells something online, and we all have to struggle with that,” Peter Kern said during an appearance on CNBC on Friday morning, following his first earnings report as the CEO of the Seattle-based online travel giant.

His comments come amid reports that U.S. antitrust regulators are preparing a case against the search giant, focusing on its dominance of digital ads.

This Google conundrum is a recurring topic for Expedia Group, but Kern appears to be taking a different approach than his predecessor Mark Okerstrom did before he was ousted from the role last fall. Appearing on CNBC this morning, Kern says Expedia needs to learn to rely less on performance marketing, a form of advertising in which the cost is based on a specific outcome such as a click or sales lead.

“We just haven’t been as good on some of the basic blocking and tackling things that allow you to rely less on Google. And so we’ve used Google and performance marketing as our primary lever of whether we could grow at a certain rate or not, but we haven’t been great at merchandising, we haven’t been great at understanding the customer. We never had data across all our brands to understand if a customer had been at another of our brands and moved to a different one. We often competed in performance marketing auctions, our own brands against themselves. So we have a lot of our own work to do and to my eye, that means we have a lot of upside that is fully not reliant on Google or performance marketing.”

Expedia also addressed the Google issue in its quarterly regulatory filing: “In addition to the growth of online travel agencies, we see increased interest in the online travel industry from search engine companies such as Google, evidenced by continued product enhancements, including new trip planning features for users and the integration of its various travel products into the Google Travel offering, as well as further prioritizing its own products in search results.”

Source: Expedia Group CEO Peter Kern: ‘Google’s a problem for everyone who sells something online’ – GeekWire

Here is my May 2019 video about why the tech giants need breaking up

Many smart home device makers rely on subscriptions to keep a steady stream of money coming in, but Wink is learning how that strategy can easily go wrong. The company has announced plans to move to a $5 per month subscription on May 13th (yes, just one week from now), and it’s mandatory. Decline to sign up and you’ll lose access to devices in the app as well as all automations. “Long term costs and recent economic events” (read: COVID-19) prompted the move, according to Wink, and the company didn’t want to sell user data to offset the costs of running services for free.

If you think that both the short notice and the threat of a hard cutoff will anger customers… well, you’re correct. Reddit users and others are incensed. They’re being asked to pay $5 per month to keep using the devices they already have in their homes, and one week gives them very little time to either weigh the merits of a subscription or find alternatives. “Pay the ransom or they kill our smart homes,” one user said.

We’ve asked Wink for comment. However it responds, the decision highlights the risks of basing your smart home system around free services without some kind of core offline functionality. While that kind of system can be very alluring so long as it lasts, you’re also trusting that the company can keep those free services running indefinitely. If it can’t, your connected household might be rendered useless with little warning.

Source: Wink smart home users have one week to subscribe or be shut off | Engadget

A California state panel on Friday rejected a request from Elon Musk’s SpaceX for $655,500 in state job and training funds, citing the chief executive’s recent threats to move Tesla, the electric carmaker that he also runs, out of the state.

The snub comes as Musk has sparred with officials in Alameda County over his plans to resume production at the Tesla plant there, which was stopped because of the coronavirus.

Five members of California’s Employment Training Panel voted to reject the proposal and two voted for it, with one member absent, after discussing Musk’s tweets on Tesla’s reopening and media reports of layoffs at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California headquarters in recent years.

“In my opinion, given the recent threats of the CEO to leave the state of California, and everything else we’ve discussed today, this proposal does not rise to the level for me to feel secure in supporting it,” said Gretchen Newsom, a panel member and the political director of an IBEW electrical workers union local.

“SpaceX is a different company, but they have the same CEO,” said Newsom, who is not related to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Though a small amount of money, the funding was opposed by organized labor groups. Tesla and SpaceX are both nonunion shops.

Source: California officials reject subsidies for Musk’s SpaceX over Tesla spat – Reuters

A new study from The School of Business at Portland State University suggests that the aggressive cultures of private equity firms, like venture capitalists, might spill over into the companies that they fund. Venture capitalists are often the hidden players in business decision making, and they are funding startups like Uber, SpaceX and AirBnB.

With money, comes expectations

As a company grows through early developmental milestones, it becomes accountable to key stakeholders.

According to the study, companies often face challenges when balancing the tension between long-term socially responsible strategies and short-term demands associated with financial performance.

PSU Associate Professor of Management Theodore Khoury and colleagues published their study, “Is venture capital socially responsible? Exploring the imprinting effect of VC funding on CSR practices,” in the Journal of Business Venturing.

The study found that venture capitalist investors often push a business they are financing to prioritize long-term financially-based goals instead of socially responsible business ones, like fair wages, reducing carbon footprints or improving labor policies.

Venture capitalists often hold a large portion of the equity in the companies in which they invest, which gives them voting power to challenge or advocate for specific strategic directions and influence decisions that might jeopardize company returns.

The prioritization of financial success opens a floodgate, allowing behaviors such as sexual harassment at new companies like Uber to go unchecked.

“We find that venture capitalist-backed companies have poorer socially responsible practice records, which do improve over time, but at a comparatively slower rate than non-venture capitalist-backed companies,” Khoury said.

Unexpected consequence of greed

The PSU study also highlights how venture capitalists’ desires for financial surplus might end up causing more harm than good.

Uber agreed to pay $4.4 million dollars to settle federal charges of fostering a work culture wrought with sexual harassment. It’s just one of the dozens of Silicon Valley companies facing huge fines related to sexual harassment charges.

The researchers assert that socially responsible practices positively impact, rather than reduce, a company’s financial performance.

“Compared to non-venture capitalist-backed companies, venture capitalist-backed companies presented significantly lower assets, sales, tangible assets, inventories, returns on assets, profit margins and debt levels, as well as higher intangibles and current ratios,” the study said.

In addition to financial success, socially responsible practices help satisfy multiple stakeholders (like employees), enhance a company‘s market value, preempt government regulations, reduce risk, develop business resources and lower capital costs.

However, the researchers add that when venture capitalist-backed companies receive funding from firms with a responsible investment orientation and a broader stakeholder view, their socially responsible practice records are significantly better.

“Early-stage imprinting can happen from many sources, but when businesses take funding from certain investors, certain cultures, operating modes and ways of conducting business may start to take shape for the long term to affect a broader group of stakeholders,” Khoury said. “The effects of early-stage imprinting from venture capital funding can be hard to ‘undo,’ and there are social consequences.”

Source: New study spotlights the dark side of venture capitalist funding

Shares of Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) jumped more than 8% on Monday, putting Tesla’s market capitalization at $141.1 billion at the close. More importantly for Musk, Tesla’s stock market value reached a six-month average of $100.2 billion, according to an analysis of Refinitiv data.

Hitting a six-month average of $100 billion triggers the vesting of the first of 12 tranches of options granted to the billionaire to buy Tesla stock as part of a pay package agreed in 2018. Musk has already met two other requirements by hitting a growth target and far exceeding a one-month average $100 billion market cap.

Each tranche gives Musk the option to buy 1.69 million Tesla shares at $350.02 each. At Tesla’s closing stock price of $761.19, Musk would theoretically be able to sell the shares for a profit of $694 million.

Musk on Friday said on Twitter, “Tesla stock price is too high imo,” using an abbreviation for “in my opinion”.

That tweet sent Tesla’s stock tumbling 10%, shocking shareholders. Tesla, whose California factory is closed as part of the state’s coronavirus-related lockdowns, posted its third quarterly profit in a row last week.

Musk, who is also the majority owner and CEO of the SpaceX rocket maker, receives no salary or cash bonus, only options that vest based on Tesla’s market cap and milestones for revenue and profit growth.

A full payoff of all tranches would surpass anything previously granted to U.S. executives.

When Tesla unveiled Musk’s package in 2018, it said he could theoretically reap as much as $55.8 billion if no new shares were issued. However, Tesla has since issued shares to compensate employees, and last year it sold $2.7 billion in shares and convertible bonds.

Musk’s subsequent options tranches would vest at $50 billion increments of Tesla market capitalization over the agreement’s 10-year period, with the billionaire earning the full package if Tesla’s market capitalization reaches $650 billion and the high tech vehicle maker achieves several revenue and profit targets.

Source: Tesla stock rise appears to qualify CEO Musk for $700 million payday – Reuters

As predicted, the proprietary locking system Apple rolled out with its 2018 MacBook Pros is hurting independent repair stores, refurbishers, and electronics recyclers. A combination of secure software locks, diagnostic requirements, and Apple’s new T2 security chip are making it hard to breathe new life into old MacBook Pros that have been recycled but could be easily repaired and used for years were it not for these locks.

It’s a problem that highlights Apple’s combative attitude towards the secondhand market and the need for national right to repair legislation.

“The irony is that I’d like to do the responsible thing and wipe user data from these machines, but Apple won’t let me,” John Bumstead, a MacBook refurbisher and owner of the RDKL INC repair store, said in a tweet with an attached picture of two “bricked” MacBook Pros. “Literally the only option is to destroy these beautiful $3,000 MacBooks and recover the $12/ea they are worth as scrap.”

Source: Apple’s T2 Security Chip Has Created a Nightmare for MacBook Refurbishers – VICE

Way to highlight capitalist consumer planet unfriendly culture, Apple

CEO Elon Musk tweeted Friday that the company’s stock price was “too high” in his opinion, immediately sending shares into a free fall and in possible violation of an agreement reached with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year.

Tesla shares fell nearly 12% in the half hour following his stock price tweets — just one of many sent out in rapid fire that covered everything from demands to “give people back their freedom” and lines from the U.S. National Anthem to quotes from poet Dylan Thomas and a claim that he will sell all of his possessions.

The SEC declined to comment on whether this was a violation of a settlement agreement. Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. Musk did tell the Wall Street Journal in an email that he was not joking and that his tweets were not vetted in advance, a condition in the prior agreement reached with the SEC.

The meltdown on Twitter occurred as SpaceX — Musk’s other company — participated in a live press conference on one of its most important missions ever.

Tesla stock price is too high imo

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 1, 2020

Musk’s tweet comes almost exactly a year after he reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that gave the CEO freedom to use Twitter —within certain limitations — without fear of being held in contempt for violating an earlier court order.

Source: Tesla shares fall on Elon Musk “stock price too high” tweet | TechCrunch

Apple has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by folks upset the iGiant broke FaceTime overnight on millions of iPhones. The settlement amounts to a few bucks a device, meaning the Cupertino giant almost certainly made a net profit in the process.

This week the Tim Cook-led corporation said it would pay $18m [PDF] into a fund to compensate the estimated 3.6 million people living in California for whom the video-conferencing app suddenly stopped working on their iOS 6 smartphones in April 2014.

The $18m sum is a third of the fair compensation the lawsuit’s claimants had calculated. Apple had made it plain it would aggressively fight the case for years, though, and so a decision was taken to settle for a lower sum. After all, Apple has been battling for more than a decade a separate legal claim that ultimately led to the FaceTime breakage, and is still firing away even after the US Supreme Court snubbed it.

About half of the settlement money will foot lawyers’ bills and pay a company to disburse tiny checks to people, possibly as low as $2.44 to $3 per Californian, depending on how many claim. If there is any good news, it’s the fact those eligible won’t have to apply for it, but should receive e-checks to their email addresses: Apple estimates that it has the details for 90 per cent of those eligible, and we suspect the remaining 10 per cent won’t bother to collect.

The two people who brought the case, Christina Grace and Ken Potter, had four in-person mediation sessions and spent three years and countless hours trying to drag compensation out of Apple for killing FaceTime. They will get $7,500 apiece.

Meanwhile, the lawyers – Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas and Smith in San Francisco and Pearson, Smith and Warshaw in Los Angeles – will get up to $7.9m, and the check disbursement company Epiq Systems will get $1.4m. No surprises there.

Apple changed the way FaceTime worked in 2014 because a court found the software infringed VirnetX’s patents, and Apple had been ordered to pay $368m. FaceTime was revised to avoid those patents, and a new version was pushed out in an operating system update, iOS 7.

Go slow

However, millions of iPhone owners chose not to update their smartphones because iOS 7 was resource hungry and slowed down their handsets, so they stayed on iOS 6. In order to avoid continuing to infringe VirnetX’s patents before iOS 7 was released, Apple had stopped using a peer-to-peer technique for routing calls, and instead put some FaceTime calls through a relay run by Akamai. But that relay cost Apple money.

And so, after iOS 7 was released, Apple let a digital certificate expire that killed FaceTime for anyone using iOS version 6 or lower, and thus there was no longer a need to operate and pay for the relay. Everyone was expected to upgrade to the non-infringing FaceTime in iOS 7, which didn’t need the Akamai’s system.

Apple claimed at the time this sudden loss of connectivity was a “bug,” and that users should upgrade to iOS 7 to fix the knackered chat app. But internal documents suggest that Apple knowingly broke FaceTime because it was costing it money. “Our users on [iOS 6] are basically screwed,” an Apple engineer noted in an internal email quoted in the lawsuit.

Source: Apple chucks $3 at iPhone users after killing FaceTime on iOS 6 because it didn’t want to pay connectivity charges • The Register

ICANN has vetoed the proposed $1.1bn sale of the .org registry to an unknown private equity firm, saying this was “the right thing to do.”

The DNS overseer has been under growing pressure to use its authority to refuse the planned transfer of the top-level domain from the Internet Society to Ethos Capital, most recently from the California Attorney General who said the deal “puts profits above the public interest.”

ICANN ultimately bowed to the US state’s top lawyer when it concluded today it “finds the public interest is better served in withholding consent.”

It gave several factors, all of which were highlighted by Attorney General Xavier Becerra as reasons to reject it: the fact that the sale would see the registry – which has long served non-profit organizations – turn from a non-profit itself into a for-profit vehicle; that Ethos Capital was a “wholly different form of entity” to the Internet Society; that the $360m in debt that was being used to finance the deal “raises further question about how the .org registrants will be protected”; and that the measures that Ethos Capital had put in place following an outcry were “untested.”

The decision will likely spark a mixture of relief and celebration from millions of .org domain holders, including some of the world’s largest non-profit organizations, many of which were certain that their long-standing online addresses were going to be milked for profit by an organization that never fully revealed who its directors or investors were.

Source: ICANN finally halts $1.1bn sale of .org registry, says it’s ‘the right thing to do’ after months of controversy • The Register

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has delayed a decision on whether to allow the sale of the organization that controls .org registrations to a band of private equity ghouls after the California attorney general’s office issued a warning

Domain names with .org suffix are used by countless nonprofits, in part because the nonprofit selected by ICANN to run the .org top-level domain—the Internet Society’s Public Interest Registry (ISOC/PIR)—has kept the cost of registration very low year after year. In theory, though, running that .org registry could be a cash cow to anyone who bought it and jacked up the prices, as nonprofits seeking the renewal of .org domains would be a captive market. Such an opportunity would be especially alluring as ICANN removed price caps on .org registration fees in 2019.

That egregious scenario appears to be in the cards with Ethos Capital, a private equity firm that came out of nowhere to offer ISOC $1.1 billion for control of the PIR, which would be converted to a for-profit firm. (While Ethos appears to only have two employees, it is backed by the tight-fisted goons at Perot Holdings, Fidelity Investments owner FMR LLC, and Solamere Capital, which was started by Mitt Romney’s son.) Ethos has sought to allay concerns with a series of meaningless commitments, such as limiting price increase to 10 percent per year for the first eight years, or approximately 214 percent in under a decade.

ISOC has more or less admitted that it considered the $1.1 billion offer out of greed, with officials telling the L.A. Times the number was so huge “we couldn’t just say no without considering.” ISOC has cleared the sale to move forward, despite the opposition of its own Chapters Advisory Council and the troubling arrangement that PIR would take on $300 million in debt as part of the deal, putting it under immense pressure to rapidly increase revenue. But one big catch is ICANN has to approve the deal or it might fall through. As Ars Technica noted, ICANN’s governance structure allows only limited influence from the internet community and it is subject to only lax regulation from the feds, while the Ethos deal involves several former ICANN officials, so any approval would immediately come under suspicion.

In a letter dated April 15, state A.G. Xavier Becerra—whose office demanded to see confidential documents in January—put everyone involved on blast. Becerra’s letter opens by citing his authority to regulate California-based charitable trusts and public benefits organizations, then cites elements of ICANN’s charter to warn the org that it “must exercise its authority to withhold approval”:

ICANN selected PIR as the registry operator for the .ORG top level domain because of PIR’s commitment to “institute mechanisms for promoting the registry’s operation in a manner that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and views of the non-commercial Internet user community.” If, as proposed, Ethos Capital is permitted to purchase PIR, it will no longer have the unique characteristics that ICANN valued at the time that it selected PIR as the nonprofit to be responsible for the .ORG registry. In effect, what is at stake is the transfer of the world’s second largest registry to a for-profit private equity firm that, by design, exists to profit from millions of nonprofit and non-commercial organizations.

According to the Register, sources with knowledge of the matter said that the letter had unnerved ICANN enough to delay a planned decision on the sale from April 17 to May 4. The California Attorney General’s office declined to comment on whether its investigation into the deal has turned up new information, citing the inquiry’s ongoing nature. But the letter makes clear that the AG has identified particularly troubling elements of an already suspicious arrangement.

“PIR and Ethos have failed to respond to ICANN’s questions regarding PIR’s financial picture after the sale,” Becerra wrote in the letter. “PIR maintains that its anticipated income will be sufficient to service the $300 million loan necessary to complete this purchase and maintain its level of operation. Additionally, as a for-profit entity, PIR will now incur tax liabilities, and its loan will be due in five years.”

“It is, therefore, disturbing that Ethos has failed to identify the new services it contends will generate the necessary revenue to cover those expenses,” he added. “While PIR currently has sufficient income for its operations, as a nonprofit it pays no taxes and is not saddled with a $300 million loan and investors who expect a rate of return.”

Becerra then questioned whether ISOC actually has a legitimate reason to sell the PIR, how the Ethos deal would actually solve those problems, and whether the process by which it agreed to the sale was in good faith:

There has been too little information provided about the sale process by which the proposed transfer sale was agreed to by ISOC. If ISOC was concerned about diversifying its revenue streams, what did ISOC do, if anything, before deciding to sell the .ORG registry agreement? Why did ISOC not conduct a competitive bid process for a new registry operator if it wanted a change in the registry operator? Did ISOC explore options other than a sale to a private equity firm, given that its nonprofit status was key to PIR becoming the .ORG registrar? What consultation, if any, did ISOC conduct with its stakeholders prior to proceeding with the proposed sale?

Furthermore, Becerra warned that ICANN’s arrangement with ISOC to handle the .org registry through PIR “contains a presumption in favor of renewing the agreement following its expiration,” stating that section “makes no sense” if PIR is converted to a for-profit entity.

“Empowering a for-profit entity that could undermine the accessibility and affordability of the .org domain, which serves nonprofits, should concern all of us,” Becerra told Gizmodo in a statement. “We’re urging ICANN to deny the request to transfer control of the .org domain to a for-profit private equity firm. In California, we’re committed to an Internet that serves everyone and we’re simply concerned that this transfer puts profits above the public interest.”

According to the Register, ICANN’s founding CEO Mike Roberts and founding chairman Esther Dyson wrote a letter to Becerra earlier this month accusing ICANN of hypocrisy and urging him to delay the deal by six months.

Becerra didn’t explicitly threaten ICANN or ISOC in the letter, but he did end the letter by reiterating that his office has jurisdiction to intervene.

“ISOC and PIR are charitable organizations that are accountable to their community stakeholders and to the public at large,” Becerra concluded. “… This office will continue to evaluate this matter, and will take whatever action necessary to protect Californians and the nonprofit community.”

In a statement on its website, ICANN acknowledged the letter but disputed that the deal would make PIR beholden only to the demands of its new private equity overlords.

“The Attorney General’s letter does not take into account the recent work that PIR has done to make the entity more responsible to the community,” ICANN wrote. “ICANN requested that PIR strengthen the Public Interest Commitments to ensure meaningful enforceability; a draft of the revised PICs has been provided to the ICANN Board.”

Source: Sale of .Org Registry Stalled After California AG Steps In

Air Charter Service has told the BBC that the first flight will land on Thursday in Stansted carrying 150 Romanian farm workers.

The firm told the BBC that the plane is the first of up to six set to operate between mid-April and the end of June.

Government department Defra said it was encouraging people across the UK “to help bring the harvest in”.

British farmers recently warned that crops could be left to rot in the field because of a shortage of seasonal workers from Eastern Europe. Travel restrictions due to the coronavirus lockdown have meant most workers have stayed at home.

Several UK growers have launched a recruitment drive, calling for local workers to join the harvest to prevent millions of tonnes of fruit and vegetables going to waste. However concerns remain that they won’t be able to fulfil the demand on farms.

Source: Eastern Europeans to be flown in to pick fruit and veg – BBC News

Leading health experts have labelled Donald Trump’s decision to cut funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) as a “crime against humanity” and a “damnable” act that will cost lives.

The move also drew a rebuke from the head of the United Nations, who said the WHO was “absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against Covid-19”.

Late on Tuesday Trump declared US funding would be put on hold for 60-90 days pending a review “to assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus”. The US is the single largest contributor to the WHO.

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the Lancet medical journal, wrote that Trump’s decision was “a crime against humanity … Every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity.”

Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary general, said it was “not the time” to cut funding or to question errors. “Once we have finally turned the page on this epidemic, there must be a time to look back fully to understand how such a disease emerged and spread its devastation so quickly across the globe, and how all those involved reacted to the crisis,” said Guterres.

“The lessons learned will be essential to effectively address similar challenges, as they may arise in the future. But now is not that time … It is also not the time to reduce the resources for the operations of the World Health Organization or any other humanitarian organization in the fight against the virus.”

Echoing Guterres’s plea, Dr Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the WHO did make mistakes and may need reform but that work needed to take place after the crisis had passed. “It’s not the middle of a pandemic that you do this type of thing,” he said.

Dr Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious disease doctor and associate professor at Boston University’s school of medicine, said the cut was “an absolute disaster. WHO is a global technical partner, the platform through which sovereign countries share data/technology, our eyes on the global scope of this pandemic.”

Laurie Garrett, a former senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the decision was a “damnable” act by a “spiteful” Trump and would cost lives. “Meanwhile, WHO is the only lifeline most African, Latin American and Asia Pacific nations have.”

Lawrence Gostin, the director of the WHO centre on public health and human rights, predicted the US would ultimately lose out because other countries would step into the vacuum with increased funding. “In global health and amidst a pandemic, America will lose its voice,” said Gostin.

The WHO has come under fire over some aspects of its handling of the pandemic, and has been accused of being too deferential to China, considering the Communist party’s early suppression of information and punishment of whistleblowers. Much of the focus of the criticism has been on a 14 January tweet from the WHO that said “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission”. But WHO officials also told their counterparts in technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, and briefed the press on 14 January, that human-to-human transmission was a strong possibility given the experience of past coronavirus epidemics and urged suitable precautions.

The WHO has also been attacked over its continuing exclusion of Taiwan from membership because Beijing considers it to be Chinese territory. Trump’s decision to cut funding was welcomed in some quarters, including by the Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong, who called the WHO an “arm of Chinese diplomacy”.

Trump’s pronouncement came amid sustained criticism of his failure to prepare for the epidemic, which has infected more than 600,000 people and killed more than 24,000 inside his country. The US is the worst affected country in the world in terms of infection numbers. On Wednesday it was reported that $1,200 relief cheques for as many as 70 million people could be delayed for several days because Trump wanted his name printed on them.

Source: ‘Crime against humanity’: Trump condemned for WHO funding freeze | World news | The Guardian