Ownership

Silicon Valley’s high-tech denizens complain the public stock markets are marred by a narrow focus on short-term earnings and profits. Now they are actually doing something about it, by launching a new framework for corporate governance, investing and trading called the Long-Term Stock Exchange.

Backed by top Valley figures such as venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, the LTSE says it plans to seek regulatory approval by the end of 2017 to become the newest US stock exchange. Its key feature: a system in which the voting power of shares increases the longer investors own them. Firms listed on the exchange would need to use such a structure, often called “tenure voting,” while abiding by numerous other rules, such as a ban on tying executive pay to the company’s short-term financial performance. If the LTSE succeeds, it could offer a new incentive for privately held tech giants such as Airbnb and Uber Technologies to go public, at a time when many market veterans and regulators fear the process of going public has lost its luster.

[Commentary] The tools of technology should strengthen, not weaken, democracy. To that end, we should require greater disclosure of the funders of online political advertisements. Tech firms also need to make heavy investments into weeding out fake accounts and false news. Even if tech companies do not adopt the journalistic standards of newspapers, they must offer readers, particularly students, some way of distinguishing fact from opinion. It’s heartening to see companies already making efforts to take some of these steps. Admitting their own shortcomings without delay and showing measurable progress will be key to earning the public’s trust.

Technology offers us hope for a new prosperity and understanding for this century. But it will take enlightened leadership. More than stock prices or product launches, Silicon Valley’s legacy will be defined by whether tech leaders step up to contribute to the larger American experiment.

Google and Facebook are looking to make an early imprint on legislation being drafted in the House and Senate that would force them and other online networks to disclose information about the buyers of political ads. Lobbyists from the Silicon Valley behemoths have met with the staffs of Sens Mark Warner (D-VA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA), all of whom are drawing up bills that would impose new regulations on the industry. The Senate bill is expected to be formally introduced next week.

It is not clear when the House legislation, which has not been previously reported, will be introduced. The companies are keen to show steps they've taken to police themselves when it comes to monitoring and disclosing the ads on their sites, efforts that could be used to fend off heavy-handed regulation as investigations into Russian interference in the election bring unprecedented scrutiny on their businesses.

In 2014, Sprint tried to buy T-Mobile in a deal that ultimately fell apart under scrutiny by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission. Regulators at the time concluded that having four major competitors in the cellular space, not three, would do the most to preserve competition and help consumers. Analysts say that a new agreement between the two companies would likely hand the reins to T-Mobile, which overtook Sprint in 2015 as the nation's third-biggest carrier. Given that T-Mobile was behind the push for many of the industry changes we've seen in recent years, it's possible that T-Mobile could do a lot with Sprint if it led the company. But many of the underlying issues — such as what happens to competition in a world of three national providers — remain.

As recently as last week, staff members at the Justice Department were said to be skeptical of a Sprint/T-Mobile deal. One argument you can expect to hear, analysts say, is that building out the next generation of wireless data — known as "5G” — will be fairly expensive and that it would be cheaper for everyone involved if T-Mobile and Sprint could join forces and build a single 5G network rather than build two of them separately. Another argument you might hear is that Sprint, whose business is weakening, simply can't survive alone and that by teaming up with T-Mobile, the combined company could more effectively compete with AT&T and Verizon.

Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic, and elsewhere: Facebook’s enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information spheres, the increasing scourge of “viral” hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks, and the Russian information ops agency.

But no one delivered the synthesis that could have tied together all these disparate threads. It’s not that this hypothetical perfect story would have changed the outcome of the election. The real problem—for all political stripes—is understanding the set of conditions that led to Trump’s victory. The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained precisely how.

Apparently, T-Mobile US and Sprint plan to announce a merger agreement without any immediate asset sales, as they seek to preserve as much of their spectrum holdings and cost synergies as they can before regulators ask for concessions. While it is common for companies not to unveil divestitures during merger announcements, T-Mobile’s and Sprint’s approach shows that the companies plan to enter what could be challenging negotiations with U.S. antitrust and telecommunications regulators without having made prior concessions.

It was reported recently that some of the Justice Department’s antitrust staff were skeptical about the deal, which would combine the third and fourth largest U.S. wireless carriers. However, regulators can only begin reviewing a corporate merger once it has been agreed to and announced. T-Mobile and Sprint are preparing a negotiating strategy to tackle demands from regulators regarding asset sales, including the divestment of some of their spectrum licenses after their deal is announced, apparently.

[Commentary] The social-media overlords seem sincere when they describe their high-minded intentions. They talk much less, however, about the money they make from their users’ relinquishment of privacy. The willingness of those who make daily use of Google and social media sites to offer up their likes and dislikes, not to mention the details of their spending habits and internet wanderings, provides these companies with the personal data that is the holy grail of modern advertising. It also gives them an endless stream of free content to put those ads beside. Their users’ endless posts, spats and vacation pics make for the ultimate reality show. At times, social-media feeds are about as authentic as a standard reality show, too.

AT&T's push to acquire DirecTV in 2015 looked like brilliance at first. Having captured most of the low-hanging fruit in the telephone and wireless markets already, AT&T's expansion into the television industry promised much more room for growth. By offering DirecTV directly to consumers, AT&T might gain new customers, hang onto old ones and take advantage of viewing data for advertising purposes. But almost from the beginning, the deal's potential seemed limited by the growing number of consumers who have been abandoning traditional television services.

With more Americans embracing online alternatives, AT&T may have inherited in DirecTV — and its 20 million subscribers — a brewing long-term headache that can be solved only by either preventing or compensating for the effects of cord-cutting. Now, it seems, that problem may be more acute than we thought.

Sinclair Broadcast Group continues to take plenty of flak for its effort to buy Tribune Media's 42 stations in a deal valued at $3.9 billion. This week it came in various new forms highlighted by the Coalition to Save Local Media, a group of deal critics that includes cable and satellite operators. Among the members are the American Cable Association, Dish Network, Common Cause, Public Knowledge, Herring Networks, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, the Competitive Carriers Association and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. PBS NewsHour devoted a segment this week to the merger, saying the merger was raising concerns "because of Sinclair’s policy of combining news with partisan political opinion."

[Commentary] I worry that as we focus on Russian bots on Twitter influencing elections, we’re ignoring a bigger threat to democracy and the political process right here at home: the proposed merger of Sinclair Broadcast Group with Tribune Media Company. Imagine what could happen to politics if Sinclair becomes the dominant local news gatekeeper.

With their time tested tactic of depopulating local news of trusted anchors, “disappearing” reliable “gatekeepers” the way Pol Pot eliminated dissenters, there wouldn’t even be news voices in key markets with the stature to help primary and caucus voters distinguish between truth and tall tales. Just think of the election eve surprises that a Sinclair broadcast could offer before the Iowa caucuses. There’s no shortage today of people and platforms aiming to divide Americans. They don’t just reside in the Kremlin. Think twice before greenlighting a merger that would enable even more “trumpization” of American politics.

[David Wade was national press secretary for the 2004 John Kerry campaign and served as spokesman for vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden for the 2008 Barack Obama campaign. He is founder of the strategic communications firm Green Light Strategies.]