Former President Obama on Wednesday praised President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel approves bill to set up commission on reparations Democrats to offer bill to expand Supreme Court Former Israeli prime minister advises Iran to ‘cool down’ amid nuclear threats MORE‘s announcement that he would withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the coming months, saying it’s “time to turn the page” on America’s longest-running war.

“President Biden has made the right decision in completing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan,” Obama said in a statement, offering his thanks to the men and women who served in Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

“It has been a long and arduous struggle in Afghanistan, rooted in our response to the deadliest terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in our history,” Obama continued. “American troops, diplomats, and development workers can take pride in their efforts to deliver justice for 9/11, destroy al Qaeda’s safe-haven, train Afghan Security Forces, and support the people of Afghanistan.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The White House said Biden and Obama spoke ahead of the president’s speech on Wednesday outlining the decision.

Obama acknowledged the “very difficult challenges and further hardship ahead in Afghanistan” and called for the U.S. to remain engaged in the country diplomatically to support its progress on human rights.

“But after nearly two decades of putting our troops in harm’s way, it is time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home,” Obama said. “I support President Biden’s bold leadership in building our nation at home and restoring our standing around the world.”

Biden on Wednesday from the Treaty Room of the White House announced that he would begin winding down the U.S. presence in Afghanistan beginning on May 1, with the goal of fully withdrawing troops from the country by Sept. 11, 2021.

“I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility to a fifth,” Biden said in prepared remarks.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home,” he said.

In arguing for pulling U.S. forces out of Afghanistan and ending America’s longest war, Biden said the events of 9/11 “cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021.”

Obama and former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump mocks Murkowski, Cheney election chances Race debate grips Congress US reentry to Paris agreement adds momentum to cities’ sustainability efforts MORE both pledged during their time in office to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan but were unable to follow through. Trump’s administration negotiated an agreement with Taliban and Afghanistan leaders stating the U.S. would withdraw its forces by May 1, 2021. Biden said he would be unable to meet that commitment, but in a nod to the significance of the agreement said U.S. forces would begin drawing down May 1.

Click Here: Brazil football tracksuit

Central Intelligence Agency Director William BurnsWilliam BurnsOvernight Defense: Biden officially rolls out Afghanistan withdrawal plan | Probe finds issues with DC Guard helicopter use during June protests Biden lays out plan for Afghanistan withdrawal CIA head says Afghanistan withdrawal ‘will diminish’ US intelligence efforts MORE said Wednesday that the planned withdrawal of U.S. military from Afghanistan would hurt the agency’s ability to gather intelligence in the country.

“Our ability to keep that threat in Afghanistan in check, from either al Qaeda or ISIS in Afghanistan, has benefited greatly from the presence of U.S. and coalition militaries on the ground and in the air fueled by intelligence provided by the CIA and our other intelligence partners. When the time comes for the U.S. military to withdraw, the U.S. government’s ability to collect and act on threats will diminish. That’s simply a fact,” Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee during Wednesday’s worldwide threat hearing.

Click Here: france national rugby union team jersey

“So all of that, to be honest, means that there is a significant risk once the U.S. military and the coalition militaries withdraw.”

ADVERTISEMENT

President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel approves bill to set up commission on reparations Democrats to offer bill to expand Supreme Court Former Israeli prime minister advises Iran to ‘cool down’ amid nuclear threats MORE announced Tuesday that the U.S. would withdraw all military personnel, some 2,500 troops, by the coming 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Burns said that while military groups “remain intent on recovering the ability to attack U.S. targets … after years of sustained counterterrorism pressure, the reality is that neither of them have that capacity today.”

Under the deal with the Taliban, the U.S. withdrawal is supposed to be contingent on the insurgents meeting certain commitments, including breaking from al Qaeda and reducing violence in the country. But U.S. military officials have repeatedly said the Taliban has yet to uphold its commitments.

Burns said “whenever that time comes” the CIA would still retain a suite of capabilities in the region to “anticipate and contest any rebuilding effort” from various terrorism groups. 

Apple and Google’s market power over digital app stores will be in the hot seat Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee’s hearing on app store fairness.

The Silicon Valley giants have come under fire over their app stores’ policies, especially over the 15 to 30 percent fees they collect from app developers. Without alternatives to the Google and Apple stores on the companies’ products, developers are largely reliant on the systems they’re critical of to reach consumers. 

As Congress continues to weigh the market power of the companies, their controversial app store policies have prompted proposed state legislation to allow apps to circumvent the fees, as well as a key court case between Epic Games and Apple that is set to go to trial next month.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The abusive practices in the App Store are blatantly anti-competitive,” Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, told The Hill.

“The platform operators and owners don’t really try to hide that they’re getting an advantage. They say the advantage is good for consumers, which is, in my view, simply not true,” he added.

Cooper is among the witnesses scheduled to testify at Wednesday’s hearing. He said he will urge Congress to take action to “reboot” antitrust laws in a way that will help spur innovation, both from the app developers and the larger tech companies.

“There appears to be good bipartisan support. The question is, what should they do?” Cooper added.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been scrutinizing the top tech companies over their market power but have not necessarily come to a consensus on bipartisan solutions to address their mostly shared concerns.

Wednesday’s hearing is the latest antitrust hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It follows a similar series of antitrust hearings the House antitrust subcommittee held earlier this year on proposals to modernize antitrust laws.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lawmakers have already butted heads with Apple ahead of the hearing. Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharBig Tech set to defend app stores in antitrust hearing Jimmy Carter remembers Mondale as ‘best vice president in our country’s history’ Hillicon Valley: Apple approves Parler’s return to App Store | White House scales back response to SolarWinds, Microsoft incidents | Pressure mounts on DHS over relationship with Clearview AI MORE (D-Minn.) and Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeBig Tech set to defend app stores in antitrust hearing Hillicon Valley: Apple approves Parler’s return to App Store | White House scales back response to SolarWinds, Microsoft incidents | Pressure mounts on DHS over relationship with Clearview AI 15 Senate Republicans pledge to oppose lifting earmark ban MORE (R-Utah), respectively the chairwoman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, joined together earlier this month in a letter to Apple criticizing the company over its “refusal to provide a witness” and urging them to do so.

The lawmakers later said that Apple confirmed it would be sending a witness, chief compliance officer Kyle Andeer, to the hearing. Google’s senior director on the government affairs and public policy, Wilson White, is also scheduled to testify.

Spokespeople for Apple and Google did not respond to requests for comment from The Hill. 

Lee specifically has pressed the companies over actions taken to take fringe social media site Parler off their stores after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Apple, however, on Monday told the Republican in a letter that the app would be allowed back on after making approved content moderation changes. 

The issue may still arise at Wednesday’s hearing, with Google not making the same commitment to bring the app back to its Play Store.

Amid backlash to Google and Apple’s commission fees, the companies have updated their policies to cut the amount they take from app developers.

Click Here: plastic molding company

Apple announced an updated policy in November to put in place a 15 percent commission fee on apps that brought in $1 million or less, down from its 30 percent fee. Google followed suit, announcing in March it would cut its commission on developers to 15 percent for the first $1 million of revenue every developer earns each year.

“They operate as a cartel when it comes to these rules,” David Heinemeier Hansson, founder and CTO of Basecamp, said Monday during a press conference organized by the Coalition for App Fairness.

The Coalition for App Fairness brings together a group of apps with varying business sizes, including Fortnite developer Epic Games, Spotify and Match Group. Spotify and Match Group are also sending witnesses to testify at Wednesday’s hearing.

The group is pushing for increased regulation of the app store market, including calling for developers to be able to use outside payment systems and for app developers to have access to app stores as long as they meet “fair, objective and nondiscriminatory standards.”

“The fees are only one part of the conversation,” said Meghan DiMuzio, executive director of the coalition.

In lieu of federal legislation, state proposals have emerged that address some of the concerns app developers have raised regarding the fees.

ADVERTISEMENT

A bill introduced by a Republican in Arizona passed the state House in March in a tight 31-29 vote. The bill would allow app developers to bypass fees from the Apple and Google stores. The bill, however, was pulled in the state Senate weeks later when it was slated for a vote.

App fairness legislation has also been introduced this year in North Dakota, Georgia, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Illinois, Minnesota, Hawaii, New York and Massachusetts, according to the Coalition for App Fairness.

The issues over the app store fees will also take center stage next month when Epic Games’ lawsuit against Apple goes to trial. The lawsuit is centered on Apple’s decision to pull the company’s popular Fortnite game from the store after the game installed its own payment system, which is not allowed under the App Store rules.

Apple argues its system helps optimize the customer experience and protect the security and privacy of users, according to a court document filed in the Epic Games case.

Adam Kovacevich, executive director of Chamber of Progress, a coalition representing some of the largest tech companies, published a blog post Tuesday defending the app store system. Google is a corporate partner that supports the Chamber of Progress.

He argued it is a “safer and more reliable way” for users to purchase and install apps and that updates to the system would not benefit consumers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Proposed changes, he said, “could worsen the customer experience, due to the friction and unreliability introduced by app store alternatives. But this debate has no bearing on what consumers pay for apps and subscriptions.”

Cooper, however, said the existing system is impacting consumer choice and pushed back on arguments in favor of the existing app store system.

“The app stores [are] constraining consumer choice under the bogus argument that, ‘Hey, this is the only way to deliver a secure high quality product,’” Cooper said. “That’s rubbish. The way we get secure high-quality products is we keep constant pressure on both sides of that line to innovate. That’s what we really need.”

The White House on Monday issued report cards for all 50 states in a bid to highlight why officials say a massive infrastructure bill is necessary.

The Biden administration released fact sheets that break down how each state stacks up in 12 key areas of infrastructure that would be addressed under the American Jobs Plan, President BidenJoe BidenFederal Reserve chair: Economy would have been ‘so much worse’ without COVID-19 relief bills Biden to meet Monday with bipartisan lawmakers about infrastructure Jill Biden gives shout out to Champ, Major on National Pet Day MORE‘s $2.3 trillion proposal to invest in traditional infrastructure like roads and railways, as well as more progressive areas like the care economy and climate-friendly industries.

The state-by-state reports offer assessments of how each state is faring in terms of roads and bridges, public transportation, resilient infrastructure, drinking water, housing, broadband, caregiving, child care, manufacturing, home energy, clean energy jobs and veterans health.

ADVERTISEMENT

The vast majority of states received an overall grade of C or C-minus, with Georgia and Utah leading the pack with C-plus grades. Several states, including Biden’s home state of Delaware, received D grades. 

The fact sheets reflect how the White House is attempting to appeal to leaders at the state and local level to garner support for Biden’s infrastructure plan. 

The White House did not win over a single Republican vote in Congress for its economic relief package earlier this year, but it frequently cited support from state and local Republican officials.

The president will meet with Democratic and Republican members of Congress at the White House on Monday for the first time since announcing his jobs plan, which has faced Republican resistance over both its contents and its proposed mechanism to pay for the costs.

GOP lawmakers have argued the bill is too expansive beyond typical infrastructure items, likening it to a liberal wish list. And many have balked at raising the corporate tax rate to pay for it.

Click Here: all stars nrl merchandise

Welcome to Wednesday’s Overnight Health Care. Take a mental break with these photos of the very large dog greeting lawmakers and reporters at the Capitol today.  

If you have any tips, email us at  nweixel@thehill.com psullivan@thehill.com jcoleman@thehill.com

Follow us on Twitter at @NateWeixel, @PeterSullivan4, and @JustineColeman8 

ADVERTISEMENT

Today: The Johnson & Johnson vaccine pause will continue, the Biden administration takes steps to rollback Trump-era family planning changes, and drug overdoses are on the rise amid the pandemic. 

Let’s start with J&J: 

There was a big CDC advisory committee meeting today….and no decision on the J&J vaccine 

An independent advisory group to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday postponed making a recommendation about the continued use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

As a result, the current pause is likely to continue until the panel can gather more evidence about the risk of rare blood clots.

During an emergency meeting, members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said they did not feel comfortable making a decision about whether to continue vaccinations yet, because there was not enough evidence about the patients who experienced the serious, but rare, side effects.

Panel members said they wanted more information about the people who may be most at risk for blood clots, like age, gender and other factors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Check back soon: The panel did not set a date on when they will meet again, but it could be in the next week to 10 days. There is also a regularly scheduled meeting on May 5.

Federal health officials recommended the pause on Tuesday, to allow the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration to review six cases of a rare and severe blood clot reported among the 7 million people who received the shot.

Click Here: Celtic soccer tracksuit

Read more here. 

 

Biden administration begins to undo Trump changes to family planning program

The Biden administration on Wednesday took the first steps to undo Trump-era restrictions on the Title X federally funded family planning program, which effectively prevented clinics that referred patients for abortions from receiving federal funding.

A proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published Wednesday would eventually revoke the restrictions put in place by the Trump administration, which critics called a domestic “gag” rule.

Not an immediate change: However, the proposal did not immediately revoke the prior policy, and the Trump rules will remain in place until the current administration formally ends them through a final rule, which could take months.

A 30-day public comment period begins April 15, when the proposal is formally published.

The proposed rule would largely revert the Title X program to the way it was run from 2000 until the Trump administration changed the rules in 2019. 

Background: The Trump administration issued rules in 2019 banning any providers that receive Title X funds from referring people for abortions while mandating referrals to prenatal services for all pregnant patients. 

After the rules took effect, about one-quarter of nearly 4,000 providers left the program, arguing they could not in good conscience agree not to provide patients with information about abortion. As a result, several states were left with no Title X providers.

Read more here. 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Drug overdose deaths climbed during early months of pandemic

The U.S. drug overdose death toll climbed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to preliminary data from the CDC.

In statistics released Wednesday, the CDC said more than 87,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in the 12-month period that started in October 2019 and ended in September 2020.

The largest increases in drug overdose deaths occurred in the 12-month periods that ended in April and May 2020, months early in the pandemic when many states had some form of shutdown in place.

Overall, the preliminary data found a 29 percent increase in overdose deaths in the 12-month period ending in September 2020, when compared to the year period ending in September 2019.

What this means: The surge in drug overdose deaths represents a setback after overdose fatalities fell slightly in 2018 for the first time in decades. But the COVID-19 pandemic has overshadowed the issue, drawing resources away from addressing drug use and toward the pandemic.

Read more here. 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

And in the other vaccine having blood clot issues: Denmark becomes first European country to drop AstraZeneca vaccine

Denmark on Wednesday announced that it will no longer be administering AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine amid concerns on links to rare blood clots, making it the first European country to make its suspension permanent. 

Danish Health Authority head Soren Brostrom said in a statement that investigations into the blood clots among some individuals who received the AstraZeneca shot “showed real and serious side effects.” 

“Based on an overall consideration, we have therefore chosen to continue the vaccination program for all target groups without this vaccine,” Brostrom said Wednesday, according to Reuters. 

Denmark was the first in a wave of countries to announce a suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine in March over concerns of a potential connection between the inoculation and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), a brain blood clot.

While a safety committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said last week that a “possible link” exists between the vaccine and blood clots, it argued that the benefits of the inoculation to protect against COVID-19 outweigh the risks. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Read more here. 

CDC study: Leaving middle seat open on planes could reduce COVID-19 exposure

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study found leaving the middle seat vacant on planes could reduce COVID-19 exposure for passengers, supporting a practice that has now been abandoned by most airlines. 

The research released on Wednesday predicted that keeping the middle seat empty on flights could reduce the risk of exposure by 23 percent to 57 percent depending on the seating occupancy model.

The highest reduction of exposure, at 57 percent, was observed when studying three rows of passengers with and without passengers in the middle of three seats.

“These data suggest that increasing physical distance between passengers and lowering passenger density could help reduce potential COVID-19 exposures during air travel,” the study reads. “Physical distancing of airplane passengers, including through policies such as middle seat vacancy, could provide additional reductions in SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk.”

No masks: But the study did not examine how masks could affect the COVID-19 exposure in different seating arrangements because the original portion of the study at Kansas State University was conducted in 2017, before the coronavirus pandemic. 

Delta Air Lines is the only U.S. airline that is currently blocking passengers from booking middle seats but has announced the seats will become available starting in May.

Read more here. 

 

What we’re reading

Underserved communities bear brunt of paused Johnson & Johnson rollout (Washington Post)

What the Coronavirus Variants Mean for Testing (New York Times)

Red states on U.S. electoral map lagging on vaccinations (Associated Press) 

 

State by state

Only 30% of L.A. County men got COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 44% of women. Why the disparity? (Los Angeles Times) 

Texas House gives initial OK to Medicaid coverage expansion for mothers until one year postpartum (Austin American-Statesman)

COVID tests provide crucial clues about how to fight coronavirus, but they’ve fallen in Washington state (Seattle Times)

North Dakota legislature passes bill requiring the state health officer to be a physician (KFYR)

Arizona Gov. Doug DuceyDoug DuceySex ed rules passed in Arizona would require parents to sign off on LGBT discussions, info Republican legislators target private sector election grants More GOP-led states risk corporate backlash like Georgia’s MORE (R) has declared a state of emergency and is sending 250 National Guard troops to support local law enforcement at the border with Mexico.

The move makes Arizona the first state to declare an emergency as the Biden administration seeks to control the influx of migrants at the border.

In recorded remarks, Ducey blasted President BidenJoe BidenBiden overruled Blinken, top officials on initial refugee cap decision: report Suicide bombing hits Afghan security forces Jim Jordan, Val Demings get in shouting match about police during hearing MORE’s handling of the surge, saying the administration was “totally divorced from reality.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“I said last month that the Biden administration is totally divorced from reality,” Ducey said. “Now, at times it seems like they fully understand the reality and they’re putting their heads in the sand and trying to ignore it anyway.”

Ducey’s office said in a statement that the troops will go to border communities to help with medical operations in detention centers, install and maintain border cameras, monitor and collect data from public safety cameras and analyze satellite imagery for smuggling.

An initial $25 million will be directed toward the deployment, though it’s unclear how long it would last.

Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows that Border Patrol encountered 172,331 migrants in March alone, of which 48,587 were unaccompanied migrant children.

Arizona isn’t the first state to send the National Guard to the border. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) sent troops to the border in early March, though he didn’t declare a state of emergency.

Meanwhile, former President TrumpDonald TrumpSt. Louis lawyer who pointed gun at Black Lives Matter protesters considering Senate run Chauvin found guilty as nation exhales US says Iran negotiations are ‘positive’ MORE deployed the National Guard to the border in 2018 before declaring an emergency to build the border wall.

Biden ended that emergency order but has kept the Guard presence at the border. The Pentagon said last month that the troop deployment could be extended past an expected fall end date.

Click Here: southern kings rugby jersey

Facebook’s plans to create an Instagram for kids are fueling new calls to crack down on digital advertising targeting children.

Experts say that while YouTube has largely been the main vehicle for influencer marketing aimed at children, with videos from so-called kidfluencers garnering millions of views, plans for a kid-centered Instagram platform are sparking backlash from lawmakers and advocates who view influencer marketing as a deceptive tactic to reach kids.

“Influencer culture rules supreme on Instagram,” said Josh Golin, executive director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC).

ADVERTISEMENT

“To indoctrinate children into a platform that is just all about appearance, and what you own, and perfecting yourself based on what digitally altered, influencers are telling you you need to be happy and fulfilled.”

The CCFC, along with roughly 99 other advocacy organizations and experts, sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergMark Zuckerberg, meet Jean-Jacques Rousseau? Republican legislators target private sector election grants Advocacy group accuses Facebook of fueling anti-Muslim hate MORE on Thursday urging the platform to cancel plans for an Instagram for kids.

The letter states that the app “subjects its users to intense commercial pressure, which is particularly unfair to developing children.”

It follows a similar letter congressional Democrats sent to Zuckerberg last week on his plans for the app, and one Rep. Raja KrishnamoorthiSubramanian (Raja) Raja KrishnamoorthiHillicon Valley: Intel heads to resume threats hearing scrapped under Trump | New small business coalition to urge action on antitrust policy | Amazon backs corporate tax hike to pay for infrastructure House panel investigating YouTube for advertising practices on kids’ platform From one ‘big house’ to another: DOJ must hold the leaders of Purdue Pharma accountable MORE (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, sent to YouTube last week pressing the company on its children’s advertising policies.

Republicans also questioned the CEOs of Facebook and YouTube’s parent company, Google, on policies regarding children’s advertising during a hearing last month before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The proposal that most directly addresses concerns on digital advertising for children is the KIDS Act, sponsored by Sens. Ed MarkeyEd MarkeyDemocrats to offer bill to expand Supreme Court Hillicon Valley: Supreme Court sides with Google in copyright fight against Oracle | Justices dismiss suit over Trump’s blocking of critics on Twitter | Tim Cook hopes Parler will return to Apple Store Democrats press Facebook on plans for Instagram for kids MORE (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). A spokesperson for Markey said the senator plans to reintroduce the bill this Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

The measure would prohibit websites from recommending content that includes influencer marketing, such as unboxing videos, to children and young teens. Other features of the bill include banning “auto-play” settings that can lead to prolonged viewing sessions and prohibiting websites from exposing children to marketing with embedded interactive elements.

“Facebook’s ill-conceived plans for Instagram for Kids would only add to this growing problem created by Big Tech’s pattern of neglect and disregard of children’s welfare,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

“The KIDS Act is one potential legislative solution, but more work lies ahead in my Consumer Protection Subcommittee to take on this pervasive problem,” he added.

The bills did not garner any Republican support when they were introduced last year. But given the recent pressure on social media companies, Common Sense Media CEO Jim Steyer said he is “very optimistic” that bipartisan solutions will emerge this year.

Rep. Kathy CastorKatherine (Kathy) Anne CastorHillicon Valley: Supreme Court sides with Google in copyright fight against Oracle | Justices dismiss suit over Trump’s blocking of critics on Twitter | Tim Cook hopes Parler will return to Apple Store Democrats press Facebook on plans for Instagram for kids Lawmakers wager barbecue, sweets and crab claws ahead of Super Bowl MORE (D-Fla.), who is planning to reintroduce the KIDS Act companion bill in the House, said she was “heartened” by the bipartisan concern voiced at the recent Energy and Commerce hearing.

“Many of the folks on the committee are parents themselves, or grandparents, and they have watched the evolution of technology over time,” Castor told The Hill.

Asked if he would support Markey’s proposal, a spokesperson for Sen. Roger WickerRoger Frederick WickerThe Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Tax March – Biden, lawmakers start down a road with infrastructure OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Biden seeks GOP support for infrastructure plan | House GOP’s planned environmental bills drop Democratic priorities | Advocates optimistic Biden infrastructure plan is a step toward sustainability On The Money: Biden seeks GOP support for infrastructure plan | Democrats debate tax hikes on wealthy | Biden, Congress target semiconductor shortage MORE (R-Miss.), ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, said the senator is interested in exploring ways to protect children and adults from unfair practices in the digital economy.

Facebook has said the kids app will help combat issues of children under 13 using the main Instagram platform, despite the platform’s policy prohibiting anyone 12 or under using the site.

In Thursday’s letter to Facebook, advocates argued that kids around the ages of 10 and 12 will likely not switch to a “babyish” version of the platform, meaning the “true audience” for the new version will be “much younger children” who don’t have existing Instagram accounts.

Stephanie Otway, a Facebook spokesperson, said the company “will not show ads in any Instagram experience” it develops for kids. She said the company doesn’t have more specifics to share about ad policies as it is in the “early days” of exploring the platform.

A spokesperson for YouTube said, “We continue to heavily invest in the YouTube and YouTube Kids experiences for kids and families, to better align with or even exceed the advertising industry’s best practices.”

The spokesperson added that the platform requires paid promotional content to be disclosed, and paid promotional content is prohibited on YouTube Kids.

ADVERTISEMENT

The root of the issue is children’s vulnerability to the marketing tactics, according to guidance on combating digital advertising for kids released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in June.

Click Here: UK football tracksuit

Children under the age of 6 have a hard time identifying ads, according to the AAP. For example, kids in this age group may be unable to even identify that an unboxing video — a popular YouTube trend where merchandise often supplied by the company is opened on camera — is a form of advertising.

The group says children ages 7 to 13 can identify ads with the help of an adult, but they cannot critically think about persuasive intent.

Although teenagers are more savvy about identifying marketing, the AAP says teens still struggle.

“It’s really hard to change behavior. And likewise, when you’re being fed something that’s really clearly tailored to you, that’s designed to get you interested, engaged and to keep you clicking basically, to buy more things, it’s incredibly hard to resist. Even if you know that’s what’s happening to you,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, chair of the AAP Council on Communications and Media.

The videos aimed at kids on YouTube are rife with explicit ads and consumerist content, according to a report released by Common Sense and the University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in November.

ADVERTISEMENT

The report analyzed 1,639 YouTube videos watched by children 8 and younger during a one-week period last year and found that advertising occurred in 95 percent of early childhood videos. Moreover, the report found 45 percent of videos viewed by children 8 and under featured or promoted products for children to buy.

Some videos included disclosures that products were sponsored by companies through a brief voiceover or written disclosure, according to the report.

Golin said those disclosures are largely meaningless in helping children defend against advertising.

“Children don’t understand what a disclosure is, and in fact, if you look at the kinds of disclosures that they have in these videos, they’re a joke,” he said.

“There is no way that a 6-year-old is going to get from ‘Thank you Target for the toys’ to ‘This person is making this video because they have a deal with Target and the things that they’re saying I should discount,’” Golin added.

Ameenuddin said parents have been shouldering the burden of trying to combat the deceptive marketing practices for too long.

“With this very unfair playing field with tech companies having multiple ways to keep kids engaged, we really do need to look to our legislators to create ways to protect kids from this targeting and information gathering, because it’s just not OK to target kids,” she said.

The Chinese government is warning dozens of tech companies to heed anti-monopoly laws after issuing a record-setting fine against tech giant Alibaba over similar violations.

A statement obtained by multiple news outlets from the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) called on companies to avoid monopolistic behavior that it warned “hinders innovation and development, and harms the interests of operators and consumers.”

The statement went on to add that Chinese firms should give “priority to national interests” over individual profits, according to the news outlets.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: All Blacks rugby store

The warning comes after the agency fined Alibaba $2.8 billion for alleged anti-competitive behavior, in particular centering around “exclusive dealing agreements” which prevented merchants from selling on platforms owned by Alibaba’s competitors, according to CNN Business.

“This is positive because the SAMR is giving the platforms one month to review their practices, rather than dish out fines and penalties without warning,” said Bloomberg Intelligence senior analyst Vey-Sern Ling.

“They are using Alibaba as an example to deter misbehavior from the rest of the industry players. If these companies toe the line, industry competition can become healthier,” Ling added.

China’s antitrust action in the tech sphere comes as U.S. regulators are debating how to handle similar concerns about tech giants including Amazon, Facebook and Google.

The House began hearings regarding potential abuses of market power in late February, while the Justice Department is also pursuing an antitrust case against Google over its dominance in the search engine field.

The Biden administration on Thursday announced sanctions against Russia for its involvement in a recent major cyber espionage operation against the U.S., foreign influence operations around U.S. elections and other concerns.

As part of an executive order signed by President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel approves bill to set up commission on reparations Democrats to offer bill to expand Supreme Court Former Israeli prime minister advises Iran to ‘cool down’ amid nuclear threats MORE, the administration through the Treasury Department will block U.S. financial institutions from purchasing bonds from Russia’s Central Bank, National Wealth Fund or Ministry of Finance after June 14 and from lending funds to these institutions. The directive also leaves open the possibility for the administration to expand the sanctions on Russian sovereign debt.

Additionally, the Biden administration is expelling 10 personnel from the Russian diplomatic mission in Washington, some of whom U.S. officials say are representatives of Russian intelligence services.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Biden administration is also sanctioning six Russian technology companies that it says provide support for Russian intelligence operations, along with 32 individuals involved in Russian efforts to influence the 2020 election. An unclassified intelligence report last month said that Moscow sought to aid former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump mocks Murkowski, Cheney election chances Race debate grips Congress US reentry to Paris agreement adds momentum to cities’ sustainability efforts MORE and damage President Biden’s candidacy.

Biden sent a letter to Congress announcing the executive order against Russia on Thursday, noting that he had determined that “harmful” activities by the Russian government, including election interference and hacking efforts, “constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” 

The sanctions have been in the works for some time. When Biden took office, he immediately ordered a review of Russia’s involvement in the massive SolarWinds hack, Russian election interference, the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and reported Russian bounties on U.S. service members in Afghanistan.

The SolarWinds hack, first discovered in December, involved Russian hackers exploiting software from IT group SolarWinds to gain access to as many as 18,000 customers, successfully compromising nine federal agencies and 100 private-sector groups.

U.S. intelligence agencies in January said the attack was “likely” carried out by Russian hackers but did not fully attribute it. As part of Thursday’s actions, the Biden administration issued a formal attribution naming Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as the culprit behind what has become one of the largest cyber espionage attacks in U.S. history.

ADVERTISEMENT

As part of the response to the malicious Russian hacking, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued an alert Thursday providing details on vulnerabilities used by the Russian hackers, along with ways to further defend networks.

The alert exposed five vulnerabilities currently being used by the SVR to compromise organizations, with the three agencies urging all cybersecurity groups to “check their networks for indicators of compromise related to all five vulnerabilities” and “implement associated mitigations.”

The administration, in coordination with U.S. allies, already announced sanctions to punish Russia for the Navalny poisoning and his subsequent jailing, with administration officials teasing since February that there would be a response around the SolarWinds hack in “weeks, not months.”

Shortly after the new sanctions were announced on Thursday, NATO’s governing body issued a statement expressing support for the U.S. actions.

“Russia continues to demonstrate a sustained pattern of destabilising behaviour,” the NATO statement reads in part. “We stand in solidarity with the United States.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The already-tense U.S.-Russia relationship has deteriorated further under the Biden administration as the new president has publicly blamed Moscow for its malign behavior, signaling a departure from the Trump era during which Trump often spoke warmly of Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinKeeping China out of Taiwan will take a tough stand from Biden Putin gets second dose of Russian vaccine: report Kremlin says Biden-Putin summit contingent on US behavior MORE and questioned the U.S. assessment of Russian election interference.

In an interview with ABC News in March, Biden said that Russia would “pay a price” for interfering in the 2020 presidential election and responded in the affirmative when asked if he believed Putin was a killer. Russia reacted angrily to his comments and recalled the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

Biden spoke with Putin by phone on Tuesday and “made clear that the United States will act firmly in defense of its national interests in response to Russia’s actions, such as cyber intrusions and election interference,” according to a White House readout. Biden also raised concerns about Russian military buildup along Ukraine’s border and proposed a summit in the coming months where the U.S. and Russia could discuss a range of issues.

“These actions are intended to hold Russia to account for its reckless actions. We will act firmly in response to Russian actions that cause harm to us or our allies and partners,” Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenOvernight Defense: Biden officially rolls out Afghanistan withdrawal plan | Probe finds issues with DC Guard helicopter use during June protests NATO will match US timeline to pull troops out of Afghanistan Indirect talks with Iran over nuclear deal to resume Thursday MORE said in a statement Thursday. “Where possible, the United States will also seek opportunities for cooperation with Russia, with the goal of building a more stable and predictable relationship consistent with U.S. interests.”

Updated at 9:05 a.m.

Click Here: soccer jackets

Large-company CEOs who are members of a top business group share a nearly unanimous sentiment that President BidenJoe BidenFederal Reserve chair: Economy would have been ‘so much worse’ without COVID-19 relief bills Biden to meet Monday with bipartisan lawmakers about infrastructure Jill Biden gives shout out to Champ, Major on National Pet Day MORE‘s proposed tax hikes would hurt business competitiveness.

The internal survey from the Business Roundtable, which has come out forcefully against the tax hikes, found that 98 percent of its members thought the proposed tax hike would have moderately or very significant adverse effects on their companies’ ability to compete. 

Three-fourths said it would hamper research and development investment, 71 percent said it would slow hiring, and almost two-thirds said it would slow wage growth. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“The proposed tax increases on job creators would slow America’s recovery and hurt workers,” added Business Roundtable President Joshua Bolten.

“This survey tells us that increasing taxes on America’s largest employers would lead to a reduced ability to hire, slower wage growth for workers and reduced investments in research and development—all key components needed for a robust economic recovery.”

Biden has proposed increasing corporate tax rates from 21 percent to 28 percent in order to pay for his $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill.

The Business Roundtable has strongly supported a major federal investment in infrastructure to upgrade roads, bridges, ports, transportation, and telecommunications, but has been vociferous in its opposition to hiking corporate tax rates to pay for it.

In 2017, former President TrumpDonald TrumpGaetz was denied meeting with Trump: CNN Federal Reserve chair: Economy would have been ‘so much worse’ without COVID-19 relief bills Police in California city declare unlawful assembly amid ‘white lives matter’ protest MORE signed a tax cut lowering the rate from 35 to its current level. The Business Roundtable and other business groups pointed to the low unemployment rate and rising wages as evidence that the lower taxes helped spur the economy. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Critics, however, say that the tax cut led to little increased business investment, and say the economic benefits were a temporary uptick from the tax cuts’ $1.9 trillion stimulus effects.

Click Here: brisbane lions jersey

They also say that some alternative methods of paying for infrastructure, such as a gas or mileage tax, would be more regressive, putting a higher share of the burden on poorer members of society.

But even some key Democrats are opposing the 7-point increase in the corporate tax rate. Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinBiden to meet Monday with bipartisan lawmakers about infrastructure Biden is thinking about building that wall — and that’s a good thing Buttigieg on exaggerated infrastructure jobs estimate: ‘I should have been more precise’ MORE (D-W.Va.), a pivotal swing vote, said the rate should increase no higher than 25 percent.

Biden has signaled an openness to other ways of financing the bill, but said it should be paid for. Sen. Chris CoonsChris Andrew CoonsBiden to meet Monday with bipartisan lawmakers about infrastructure Buttigieg: Biden will have ‘open mind’ toward changes to infrastructure bill Five takeaways from Biden’s first budget proposal MORE (D-Conn.), an Biden ally, suggested last week that the total price tag was likely to come down, but that part of the package could be financed with increased federal borrowing.