also backed a plan to join nato. here watching d w, and use op. next is our technology show shift, including a report about a woman who has a big take war rates for me and a team you in berlin, thanks for watching. and if you want, we'll see you again at the top of the hour for the latest one, continent, 700000000 people with their own personal stories. europe. mm hm. we explore every day life with what europeans fear and what they hope for august on europe in on d w. m. norm stories that people the world over the

information. they provide the opinions, they want to express d, w on facebook and twitter, up to date and in touch. follow us. we've all heard that when something is free online. we are the product and big tech companies have gotten rid of of our data, but many say they have also become far too powerful. so what can be done about these data giants? that's our topic on ship today. ah, a big tech companies collect user data, analyze it, and then use it for their own means. this provides us with a lot of comfortable services, but it's also allowed these global companies to grow incredibly rich and mighty.

even in the u. s. people are now saying that google, amazon, facebook, and apple or gaffa, have become too powerful. but what does this mean exactly? the global data collection machine may seem to be out of control, but controlling its leavers are the heads of google, amazon, facebook, and apple. we indirectly pay for free services, like google maps in whatsapp without data. every click purchase, all like we make gets collected and analyzed by tech companies. this allows them to better understand that uses and other companies to create more targeted personalized ads. the gaffer group has become infamous, not least because of their cutthroat business models. they take the profit they make on their respective platforms and use this to buy other companies to take over new market areas. not jack competitors or higher top level professionals. over the

past decade, google in its parent company alphabet acquired more than a 120 companies facebook, around 80, and amazon around to 90. this makes it harder for uses to escape the clutches of gaffa. take facebook following the popularity of instagram and what's ab. facebook bought both companies and thus eliminated them as competitors. bob then this google, which has often rigged search results to favor its own services. for example, if a user wants to buy something, they may 1st want to compare prices and will likely be led to the service google shopping. if they then get forwarded to a retailers website, google gets a provision. meanwhile, competing sites like the german e. d. arlo are ranked lower in the search which puts them at a disadvantage. see

a similar situation with apple. it used to be important to have a store in a prime location when you were releasing a new product these days. if you're releasing an app, you need to pay apple to get prime listing in its app store, which gives apple sway in which programs uses install on their phones. amazon meanwhile is no longer just an e commerce and cloud computing giant. it's also one of the biggest media companies in 2019 amazon invested $7000000000.00 into music series and films. and that was before it board m g m amazon's india division is currently in trouble. according to reports, it's systematically copied items sold by 3rd parties and then rigged search results to favor its own products. the problem is that amazon is not just a platform, it's also a retailer itself, and it competes for customers on its own platform. one woman who is fighting big tech monopolies is lina. com be answered, ross,

scholar and law professor was recently appointed the chair of the u. s. as federal trade commission, and she's got big tech worried is what some call her the wonder woman behind a new wave of anti trust lance lina con intends to break up america's tech giants. but taking on gaffer is no small feat. con was born in london to pakistani parents . the family moved to the us when she was 11 years old. now 30 to conquer, up with the internet. and she skeptical about the huge influence, big tech have on society or the financial times of culture, a legal wound i kent and the new york times described her as a celebrity in the corridors of washington. in june of this year, she was sworn in as chair of the federal trade commission laid as part of a movement. the movement is absolutely

a threat to google facebook and amazon, as we know them today. lena khan is the youngest chair, person in the history of the u. s. as top competition watchdog, and she's long seeing the need for a change in washington. back in 2018. she said the fact that these dominant platforms, google, amazon, are now effectively serving as infrastructure for other businesses. and that creates a relationship of dependence. but in addition to serving in as infrastructure for other businesses, amazon and google are integrated in all these other lines and that puts them in direct competition with the companies rely on their infrastructure. she was previously at the open markets institute where a mentor of hers, barry lynn still works there too. she researched how anti trust laws were failing to check the power of a big tech group of sinkers back in the late seventies early eighties. they just changed the rules, they made it easier, far easier for people to make monopoly,

to concentrate power. so it's kind of a one to punch, change the rules, and then you have a new technology that rises up in this new radical lead. different world corporation, like amazon 30 years ago would have been outlawed mostella last. you can publish amazons antitrust paradox. in this article, she argued that just because the new technology amazon provides customers with low prices, it should not get a pass on anti competitive behavior. these days can, has become a sought after interview partner. she is a key figure in the investigation of how big tech abused their market power. and she has clear views about what can be done about it and why we should all care. there was a very clear recognition in the legislative history that in the same ways that concentration of political power threatened democracy, concentration of economic power. also threatened democracy. user data is worth

billions information about who we are, what we like, and even our illnesses and fears is the oil that fuels the diesel economy. it's used to help customize edwards and sell products. and more and more aspects of our lives are being digitalized. so much so that global data amounts i expected to increase to $175.00 that a bytes per year by 2025 for reference. that abide has 21 zero's. it's a 1000000000 terabytes. at the moment, it's mainly the tech giant's profiting from these huge amounts of data. china's rulers think this should change the countries communist party is restricting the unchecked expansion of chinese take giants so that it can profit from data. the chinese food delivery giant may to one has been fined. in october 2021. it was ordered to pay more than $460000000.00 euros. china's state administration for market regulation van mae twan had effectively force to provide is to sign

exclusivity agreements with the platform and thus violated anti trust laws. it was not the 1st chinese online company to be penalized. the e commerce tighten ali baba was hit with a fine equaling 2400000000 euros for abusing its dominant position in the market. and that's not all the payment provider ali pay is to be broken up. the plan is 4 separate lines up to be created and part of the use of data turned over to a new joint venture, partly owned by the state. all of these measures a part of beijing's crack down on chinese tech firms, as the communist party wants strict regulations. according to a law drafted by china's cyberspace watchdog, government bodies ought to be given access to social media algorithms, which uses will be able to turn off. the secrecy of social media algorithms has often been criticized also in the us and europe. but expos worried the new measures

in china will lead to posts that favor the potty and its values being pushed. while politically dissident content will be sensitive even more, more state controlled, so that online shines on the only ones profiting from the digital revolution. is that the right approach? or should it be? we use us who have control over our own data in a traffic jam at a bus stop or embed wherever we are at online activities generate data. but what with the will look like if this data didn't flow mainly into the hands if take giants, what if it were being used for the good of society? i data could help whimpering fred traffic. it could show where we need more public transport options and identifying which st. so i really congest stanton information about which food items we buy could help decide which helps to prioritize.

scientists at the found of institute and looking into how with a data markets can be made safer and more beneficial than if i mentioned to someone who wants to have sovereignty over their data. they need to know where their daughter is and how it is being processed, but you also need to be able to control which companies have access to your data and what they can do with it. this is a part of the democratic process because it entails self determination and being responsible for your own data. gotten the cities of amsterdam and barcelona ran a 3 year pilot project that gave people more control over their personal data. for example, citizens were able to confirm their identity in a nap without having to reveal their name or social security number to date, no data sovereignty project has really succeeded. however, a fact which is partly due to technical challenges and challenges, spelling further proof loyalty and a new one interesting area is anonymity and route among people tend to think

anonymity is beneficial because it means they will be harder to identify and can blend into the crowd believe but it poses a problem for dot to sovereignty, because there we are trying to connect people to their data and so that they can profit from it, or on poverty, inconveniences, by removing that connection. citizens would no longer be able to benefit from their data because nicholas of darren pilots. this is why florian loaf and his colleagues at the found health institute, say compromises may be in order in the light on an ms. your, when it comes to anonymous zation, they could be a weaker and anonymous zation procedure, and this would ensure that a person is identifiable, but that they can only be tracked by a number. such a process would require a trusted body acting within the ecosystem teams. mit i've, yet the researchers suggest that a public data body or institute should be set up between uses and big tech. so that

uses can better control the flow of their data. although this wouldn't achieve full independence from facebook and co. it would be a stack toward data, self renting. mm. europe has a plan to reclaim data sovereignty, which is the project gaga x. this will challenge us in chinese cloud dominance by creating an open and transparent data infrastructure for the whole of europe. i think it would be amazing if uses and not just companies could decide who our data is shared with and what purposes it gets used for what you pay for. so this is like google on facebook if it meant you own your data. and if so, how much let us know your thoughts? that's it for me this week. your next time i

i will be is tied up in traffic jams. it's an ongoing problem in the canyon capital . a small start up with big ideas wants to improve the situation, electric lessons to reduce market, they're quiet and affordable. they can already be found on the streets of 9 o. b. but does the project have a future read? ah, next dw, a power sound. i'm being a baby ah trauma, i mainly diesel engine insurance and i'll bring the secret on music is maybe a 45 minute on d, w i. she's got any issues or thoughts, they will grey,

you will be able to do a gets me every single tie we are living during the most extraordinary time in history of transport. we'll go pull the electric.