The suspended Twitter account of U.S. President Donald Trump (Photo Illustration by Justin ... [+] Sullivan/Getty Images)

Shortly after the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, a number of social media companies, starting with Twitter, kicked President Donald Trump off of their platforms. Following Twitter, Facebook banned Trump from its platforms including Instagram, and then other social media companies, including YouTube followed suit. Within a few days, Trump found himself with no digital means of getting his word out.

Of course he wasnt muted as President he could call a press conference any time he wished, and he could be confident that the media would attend. But like many politicians who had learned about the power of unfiltered access to the internet, Trump had grown used to being able to have his say whenever he wanted it. Now, through the actions of a couple of large companies, he couldnt get his word out in the way he wished.

This raised questions in many circles at the time, and those questions havent gone away in the time since. What are the implications of silencing a sitting President? Is it legal or ethical to shut off access to those platforms?

Deplatforming

To answer that question, the Georgetown University Law Center held a panel discussion with four of its top legal experts to examine the question of deplatforming a sitting President.

The first question, whether its legal for the companies to remove a sitting President from a publicly available social media platform such as Twitter or Facebook, was answered at the beginning of the panel discussion by moderator Hillary Brill, acting director of Georgetown Laws Institute for Technology Law and Policy. Brill noted the outcry by many when it happened that it was somehow a limitation on free speech, noting that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects free speech against limitations from the government, She noted that Twitter, Facebook and the other companies were private companies. There is no First Amendment issue regarding their actions to block the President from posting on their services.

"White-Gravenor Hall of the Georgetown University, Washington DC."

But that didnt mean there werent concerns. Professor Erin Carrol, who teaches on communications and technology and the press, said that she was concerned about the power of big tech and the lack of transparency. When you clear away disinformation, will there be truth behind it? she asked.

Unfortunately, there may not be. Carroll pointed that when Trump and his sympathizers were booted from the mainstream social media, they moved to other platforms, such as Telegram and Signal, which are message services where law enforcement has little access, and Gab, which makes little attempt to control the content of messages. Another social media site, Parler, initially benefitted as a sort of home away from home for refugees from Twitter, but sponsors didnt like its lack of moderation, and Amazon, which was hosting the service, refused to carry it. That effectively killed Parler.

Speech doesnt go away

Speech doesnt go away, Carroll said, it just finds other places.

According to Professor David Vladeck, the A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure at Georgetown Law and former head of the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau, much of the issue about removing someone such as Trump from a platform is rooted in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He said that Section 230 enables a lot of the problems. It gives very broad immunity for publishing harmful or defamatory information. He said that while he doubts that Section 230, which protects internet providers from liability for material that others post on their sites, will be repealed, he thinks its likely to be changed. He noted that former President Trumps desire to repeal that section was based in his lack of understanding of what it did. In effect, he said, it would have allowed much greater control over what he posted, rather than less.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the ... [+] Communications Decency Act (Photo by Greg Nash / POOL / AFP) (Photo by GREG NASH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

That then raised the question of just how online content should be controlled. Professor Anupam Chander, who teaches communications and technology law, suggested that changing Section 230 to bring more content moderation might not be a good thing. It could lead to a Disneyfied universe, he said. That would be one in which no negative information exists.

Transparency needed

Instead, Carroll said that whats needed is for the industry to adopt greater transparency in how it makes decisions. She said that when new rules, such as a revision of Section 230 are done, it needs to be done by people who understand it, and who understand the way online services such as Twitter and Facebook work.

How do we have policies that promote facts versus propaganda, Carroll asked. She suggested that there needs to be some accountability into who makes decisions such as deplatforming a President.

So far, however, there seems to be no obvious answer to the question about when or if to remove such a platform from the President (or anyone else for that matter). But it appeared clear that the first step should be to update current legislation to at least reflect how these services work, and to make sure that theres transparency/

Read this article:

Georgetown University Discusses The Great Deplatforming: Removing Trump From Social Media - Forbes

Contributing Author: Bryan Sullivan

Amazon, Apple and Google have all booted Parler from their platforms in a span of a little more than ... [+] 24 hours.

The shocking events of the Trump-fueled January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot had very visible and, in some cases, unexpected consequences. Within days of the violent Capitol insurrection, some social media and web service platforms suspended the accounts of Donald Trump and many of his supporters, who participated in inciting and organizing the Capitol breach. The sweeping suspensions included over 70,000 Twitter accounts, as well as the ban of free speech social media platform Parler by Amazon AMZN , Web Services, Apple AAPL , and Google GOOG . Right-wing megaphones are now ringing loudly, with cries of censorship and free speech. But have anyones rights been violated? The simple answer is no.

In some instances, the suspensions were a surprise - most social media platforms had bent over backwards NOT to remove Trump or his followers accounts and posts, slowly and reluctantly adopting content disclaimers and warnings. The reaction was far more expected, as many conservative voices began to rail against social media and tech giants. Among the claims: that this is a violation of free speech, and that a private company restricting access to its services is somehow either illegal or even unconstitutional. Neither of these is true.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is one sentence and, fittingly, 45 words. It restricts only what Congress may do as far as making a law that infringes on freedom of speech. A private company cannot violate this amendment by disallowing access to its platform(s). More importantly, in the case of extremism, deplatforming has been shown to be an effective tool, including in a 2016 Brookings Institute study on ISIS. Notably, the vocal minority who are decrying their deplatforming had no problem with the deplatforming of ISIS, and likely wouldnt have an issue if Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of the Squad were deplatformed.

Users agree to (usually boilerplate) contracts when signing up for a social media, hosting, or other digital service and courts have held that these are enforceable. These Terms Of Use/Service can be many pages long, and almost always insulate the company from its users, including an explicit right to terminate services for conduct that the companies determine in their sole discretion is dangerous. Companies are well within their rights when enforcing these contracts, which are voluntarily entered into as a condition of use. In the case of both AWS and Twitter, the terms are clearly indicated and presented to the user to read and accept at the point of signup. As discussed in the Second Circuit decision in Specht, a decision written by now-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, this distinction, having the terms clearly indicated, prominently featured, and affirmatively assented to, is the threshold for enforceability. AWS and Twitter certainly meet this requirement.

Twitter cited two inflammatory Trump tweets in its decision to remove his account. One of Twitters rules states You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Trump violated Twitters glorification of violence policy on January 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol was stormed: The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!! (Capitalization in original.) He later tweeted: To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

In this photo illustration a notification from Twitter appears on tweet by U.S. President Donald ... [+] Trump that the social media platform says violated its policy on May 29, 2020 in San Anselmo, California.

While these tweets are relative tame compared to some of Trumps other far more boisterous tweets, Twitter still rightfully pointed to its Terms of Service and the global context in which these tweets were made. Twitter stated: Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the Presidents statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Parlers agreement with Amazon Web Services (AWS) falls under two different agreements that are included in any new account signup, a Customer Agreement and an Acceptable Use Policy. In addition to the right to modify or change the terms (and services) with applicable notice, AWS Customer Agreement includes Section 4, on responsibilities of the account-holder (in this case Parler). Section 4.2 states You will ensure that Your Content and your and End Users use of Your Content or the Service Offerings will not violate any of the Policies or any applicable law. This question of violating any policies or applicable law is of the utmost importance in addressing Parlers dismissal from the hosting platform. Section 8.2(c) of the Customer Agreement goes on to say that the accepting party represents that none of Your Content or End Users use of Your Content or the Service Offerings will violate the Acceptable Use Policy.

That Acceptable Use Policy begins as follows:

No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content

You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive.

Certainly inciting, organizing, and then attempting to cover up an armed insurrection and forceful seizure of a government building, with the intent to detain, harass, and harm people must qualify as a violation of these terms. Moreover, it has been reported that various conversations on Parler involved people openly advocating the overthrow of President Biden and alluded to the assassination of Democratic politicians and Republican politicians who were not supportive enough of Trump.

Parlers lawsuit, which accuses AWS of acting based on political animus and violating antitrust law by cutting off their service, has been dismissed by Amazon in a statement as having no merit. "It is clear that there is significant content on Parler that encourages and incites violence against others, and that Parler is unable or unwilling to promptly identify and remove this content, which is a violation of our terms of service," the company said. As far as an antitrust claim, Parler could argue that the tech giants conspired, but the conspiracy would have to be aimed at overall market disruption, not targeting a single company.

It is understandable that Trump, Parler, et. al. would attempt to take legal routes, regardless of viability. Rejection sucks. But in this case it is legal and just.

Bryan Sullivan, Partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, advises and represents his clients as a legal strategist in all their business affairs. He has significant experience on the litigation and appeals side of the practice, as well as with entertainment and intellectual property contracts, investment and financing agreements, and corporate structure documents on the dealmaking side.

Continued here:

Amazon And Twitter Deplatforming Parler And Trump; Is It Legal? - Forbes

Though we are in the midst of a techno-reckoning that has been neatly packaged as the Great Deplatforming, the measures taken by individual companies following the attack on the Capitol have been varyingly radical. Applying their now-customary methods of content moderation to high-profile U.S. users, major social media companies like Facebook and Twitter took action against many on the right, including President Donald Trump, Representative Majorie Taylor Greene, and 70,000 accounts linked with QAnon for inciting violence and violating terms of service. More atypically, those operating the previously mostly invisible digital infrastructure that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are built on also displayed their power, taking down Parler, a free-speech alternative to Twitter. Apple, after issuing a short-fuse warning Parler couldnt possibly heed, removed Parler from its App Stores, Google removed the social network from its Google Play store, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) took down its service entirely. These emergency measures should not be taken lightly, but they have reportedly greatly reduced the spread of election disinformation online. While new technologies and technology companies have contributed to, perhaps even caused, some of the problems that lead to the events on Jan. 6, Pandoras box has been opened. Conspiracy theorists and disinformation remain in the world and online. At the end of the day, solving that problem will require more than just a technical solution.

The App Store and Google Play store are the gatekeepers to hundreds of millions of American smartphones. Despite the fact Parler had been previously warned of its bad behavior, the landscape shifted quickly after the events of Jan. 6. When Parler was taken off the App Store and Google Play store, would-be users were no longer able to download it onto their phones, and the company was restricted from pushing updates to their app. While the statistics for Parler are not public, 93 percent of video views on Twitter come from mobile. When Google and Apple remove an app from their respective stores they do not quite issue a platform like Parler a death sentence, but such actions are extremely damaging to a networks ability to grow and maintain a user base.

While Apple and Google can create serious or even fatal business problems, a web hosting company can spark an immediate crisis for a hosted service should it pull the plug. AWS provides computing and data storage for much of the internet; in 2019, the company maintained about 45 percent of the internets cloud infrastructure. When the company abruptly canceled Parlers contract after the Capitol attack, the website went down. But death on the internet is short lived. About a week after being taken down, Parler registered its domain with Epik, a company known for hosting far-right content, and announced, We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. It is possible that Parler will follow in the footsteps of the far-right social network Gab and host its own servers at an undisclosed data center. This lifeline is more expensive and more difficult to set up and maintain.

The internet has many entry points for the moderation of content. Anything providing for the movement of bits could theoretically become a selective barrier: With varying degrees of precision, a cloud provider, wifi router maker, ISP, or owner of a copper fiber wire can determine what passes across some portion of the internet, whether through literal technical intervention, or use of its broader leverage to compel an application provider, who relies upon it to function, to take action. But the deeper into the infrastructure one goes further removed from specific instances of communication between people and the specific apps theyre using to make it the rarer and more significant a deplatforming becomes. AWS justified the take down of Parler by noting that its acceptable use policy states that users may not host certain content, including content that violate[s] the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others. Nor may they use the service in a way that poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party. These broad terms are seldom enforced outside of services engaged in outright fraud or hacking against their own users.

In its opposition to Parlers application for a temporary restraining order on the basis of breach of contract and antitrust claims, AWS noted that it reported to Parler dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang public officials, kill Black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head. Crucially, on Parler, hatred did not lurk on the fringes and calls to violence werent isolated voices lost in a sea of content. Instead, it was common to come across posts and comments calling for violence or civil war. And this dozens figure cited by AWS is only a fraction of a fraction of the content that incited violence.

As part of my research, I joined Parler in early November, right before the election. It was clear that the network facilitated and bred hatred and disinformation. Its ecosystem was immediately evident. A prominent figure, such as Republican Senator Ted Cruz or Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, would post a provocative article, usually with no direct incitement to violence. However, their post or Parley was meat for the piranhas. For instance, on both Parler and Twitter, Cruz posted an article from the Washington Examiner titled: Graphic warning: Reported Black Lives Matter counterprotesters sucker punch and stomp on man leaving DC Trump rally, commenting Why is the media ignoring this? Why are Dems silent? The response to the posts on the two platforms was drastically different.

On Twitter, many of the responses are critical of the article, noting that the video was edited to remove the beginning of the incident where the man who is eventually sucker punched shoves a man to the ground and kicks him as other Trump supporters shout kill them. Some even condone the sucker punch, with someone tweeting [] he got exactly what he deserved. Make better choices, then. Other commenters bash the media and liberals, tweeting They blame the victim and make up lies, or, Because theyve gotten away with it since it started. [] There are no politicians that will hold them accountable. A small minority foreshadow future violence: We are only going to put up with the crap for a little while [] We will stand and fight and have no mercy on them.

But, on Parler, the comments were far more extreme. The comments on the platform read: []We have the 2nd amendment on our side. Put a damn mask on to cover you[r] identi[ty] lock and load, and start cleaning the streets of this vial filth, and [If] I see any BLM or ANTIFA and I am going to pull my gun and start shooting! F[***] those a[******] communist f[****]!.

Even more dangerously, conservatives used Twitter and Parler differently. For instance, Sean Hannity posted on Parler that Antifa and Stalinist Sympathizers Disguised in Trump Gear Identified in DC Protests, a claim based on an article that is false. There is no such reciprocal post on his Twitter account. Politicians and commentators can additionally post different messages on different social media. As journalist Nick Martin noted, Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) seemingly parleyed in support of the Jan. 6 raid of the Capitol while simultaneously tweeting a soft condemnation of it.

Thus, when it comes to political purpose, Parler served two main roles for those on the right: It was a community, a safe space to express and consume disinformation and radical viewpoints, and it allowed a forum to collect and re-interpret mainstream messages. To hear a dog whistle, you need a dogs ear, after all. Parler is not the first network to have served these functions. It wont be the last, either. In fact, even without the internet, Parler can be replaced.

Without Parler or Twitter, disinformation and hatred coded or overt will continue to be broadcast. The Trump White House and Fox News were, by some researchers findings, the largest spreaders of fake news. Even without Twitter or the White House, Trump will retain a spotlight, if only through right-wing new organizations. Plus, the U.S. Congress now has at least two members who have publicly supported QAnon, including Marjorie Greene Taylor, who in 2017 expressed her belief that having Trump as president provided the country with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take [the] global cabal of satan-worshipping pedophiles out. Hannity no longer has his Parler, but he still spewed disinformation about Antifa masquerading as pro-Trumpers at the Capitol on his cable show, which averages 4.5 million viewers a night.

And without Parler or Twitter, disinformation and hatred coded or overt from radical elites will continue to be noted and interpreted. As recently as this summer, QAnon Facebook groups had millions of members. When these groups were shut down, many moved to Parler, a platform that consisted of adults who consensually joined it, presumably to have discussions like the ones they were having and to consume content like what they were seeing. With Parler gone and Twitter and Facebook cracking down on conspiracy theories, millions have downloaded the encrypted messaging apps Signal and Telegram, which allows for groups of up to 200,000 people. This doesnt absolve Parler of responsibility, nor does it mean any action taken is helpless. But conspiracy theorists wont disappear; theyll migrate.

In the wake of this, the question arises: What is there to be done? Already, Big Tech has answered that question in its own way, with Apple, Google, and AWS taking aggressive measures to disable the platform. The moves they made were probably the right ones, at least in the short term, but problems remain. Millions of Americans believe the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, a problem for which there is no technical solution. At a certain point, the question about what to do with Parler is only part of the broader one about how society should cope with the fact that segments of the population are living in different realities. And thats a far trickier problem one that, when the dust settles, and platforms are unable to reasonably cite the imminent threat of violence, we will have to solve.

See more here:

De-platforming Is a Fix, But Only a Short-Term One - Just Security

Online social media platforms accepted the role of moderating content from Congress in 1996. The Great Deplatforming that occurred after January 6 was less a silent coup than a good faith effort to purge online platforms of toxic content.

After former President Trump and many of the extremist followers he goaded were removed from a variety of online platformsmost notably Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, as well as Redditmany saw the subsequent silence as a welcome relief. But is that, as Luigi Zingales posits, an emotional reaction to a wrong that is being used to justify something that, at least in the long term, is much worse?

The Great Deplatforming (aka the Night of Short Fingers) has exposed the fact that a great deal of political discourse is occurring on private, for-profit internet platforms. Can these platforms be trusted as our guardians of free speech?

Recognizing that the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity, and with the intent of preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation, Congress granted immunity in 1996 to interactive computer services (which are equivalent of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other online social media platforms) for any information published by the platforms users. Without this immunity, social media platforms would simply not exist. The potential liability for the larger platforms arising from the content of the millions upon millions of posts would be far too great a risk.

Congress also granted social media platforms immunity for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. This provision gives platforms an incentive to moderate content to weed out objectionable and illegal content. It can be a vile world out there, as evidenced by some of the hateful, harmful, and obscene comments that are posted in online forums. As noted by Cloudfare founder Matthew Prince, What we didnt anticipate, was that there are just truly awful human beings in the world. The situation has devolved to such an extent that experts now recognize that some human moderators suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder-like symptoms.

What do we do when the moderation we have encouraged social media platforms to conduct is applied to what some consider political speech? Many fear that platforms have difficulty differentiating between racist and/or extremist posts advocating violence against individuals or institutions based on political views, and simple political opinion. Indeed, Facebooks own executives acknowledge that the companys algorithm-generated recommendations were responsible for the growth of extremism on its platform. Concerns have also been raised that, with bad intent, some platforms refuse to make that differentiation to promote their executives own political agendas. Social media platforms have also been accused of moderating such political speech with a bias toward a particular party.

One approach is to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that provides internet social media platforms their immunity. Republicans introduced five bills in the 20192020 Congressional session calling for amendments, as well as the full repeal, of Section 230. For example, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo), claiming a lack of politically neutral content on social media platforms, sponsored the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act. Under the bill as introduced, online social media platforms with 30 million or more active monthly users in the US (or 300 million or more active monthly users worldwide, or more than $500 million in global annual revenue) would have to obtain an immunity certification from the FTC every two years. The social media platform would be denied a certification and lose Section 230 immunity if it was determined to be moderating in a politically biased manner, which would include disproportionately restricting or promoting access to, or the availability of, information from a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint. As one article noted, Hawley wants to stop internet censorship by censoring the internet, not to mention regulating political speech.

The Parler lawsuit amplifies a point made by one commentator: If you are so toxic that companies dont want to do business with you, thats on you. Not them.

In May 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order claiming online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans speech, and stating that online platforms should lose their immunity, because rather than removing objectionable content in good faith as required under the law, they are engaging in deceptive actions by stifling viewpoints with which they disagree. The Executive Order called on the FCC to propose new regulations to clarify immunity under Section 230 and for the FTC to investigate online platforms for deceptive acts. Both Tim Wu and Hal Singer have provided cogent arguments on ProMarket as to why these are doomed approaches.

Online moderation is enforced through each platforms terms of service (TOS) that each user must agree to before being able to post to each respective platform. After the January 6 siege of the US Capital, the tech companies that deplatformed a large number of users, including former President Trump, and deleted tens of thousands of posts, did so on the basis of users violating their respective TOS. For example, Amazon Web Services (AWS) stopped hosting Parler because of Parlers alleged violations of the AWS TOS, which include an Acceptable Use Policy. Parlers subsequent lawsuit against AWS could have served as a bellwether case for the application of TOS to regulate speech. Unfortunately, the case Parler presented is appallingly weak (one lawyer referred to it as a lolsuit). For example, the AWSParler hosting agreement clearly gives AWS the power to immediately suspend and terminate a client that has violated AWSs Acceptable Use Policy.

In its swift denial of a preliminary injunction in this case, the court also noted the lack of any evidence that Twitter and AWS acted together either intentionally or at all to restrain Parlers business.

Parlers causes of action continue with a claim that Twitter was given preferential treatment by AWS because similar content appeared on Twitter, for which Twitters account was not suspended, while Parlers account was terminated. There are two issues with this assertion: First, we return to the role of moderation. Twitter actively (though, to some degree, imperfectly) moderates the content on its platform. In contrast, Parlers home page stated its users could [s]peak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being deplatformed for your views.

Even more damaging to Parlers assertion is the fact that the evidence in the case demonstrates that AWS doesnt even host Twitter on its platform and therefore did not have any ability to suspend Twitters account even if it wanted to. But the Parler lawsuit amplifies a point made by one commentator: If you are so toxic that companies dont want to do business with you, thats on you. Not them (which would seem to apply to Zingaless justification for Simon & Schusters cancellation of Senator Josh Hawleys book deal).

In denying Parlers request for a preliminary injunction that would order AWS to restore service to Parler pending the full hearing, the court rejected any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parlers users have engaged in. While this ruling does not end the case, it does substantiate the weakness of at least some of Parlers arguments.

The corporate owners of the social media platforms are permitted in our free enterprise system to set the terms under which content may be posted or removed from the platforms.

Although the AWS-Parler case before the court will ultimately resolve this particular dispute, the underlying issues will remain far from resolved regardless of the outcome of the case. The explosion of social media over the last ten years, and its supplanting of traditional media to a large degree, has created a new and untested playing field for public discourse. Some of the issues raised are similar in scope, if not size, to the issues our courts have dealt with in the past. The corporate owners of the social media platforms are permitted in our free enterprise system to set the terms under which content may be posted or removed from the platforms. As non-government actors, the First Amendments freedom of speech protections do not apply to the speech of a private company, a fact confirmed by the court in denying Parlers preliminary injunction. The audience of the social media platforms at issue, however, has grown to exponentially. While deplatforming will, at least temporarily, silence those voices promoting violence on specific platforms, the long-lasting implications are less clear.

While it is true that Trump lost the popular vote in the 2020 election by 7 million votes, the fact remains that 74.2 million Americans did cast their votes for Trump. Once Twitter permanently banned Trump from its platform, and many surmised that he would join the less restrictive Parler, nearly one million people downloaded the Parler app from Apple and Google before it was removed from those stores and Parler was suspended from AWS. Moving the conversation off of mainstream social media and driving it into less balanced platforms whose subscribers are more homogeneous, much to the dismay of even Parlers CEO, John Matze, encourages an echo chamber of ideas in smaller encrypted platforms that are more difficult to monitor and potentially amplifies the most angry and passionate voices.

If the touted exodus of conservatives from Twitter to other platforms that they view as more welcoming comes to fruition, could our public discourse become even more divided, with opposing viewpoints feeding upon their own biases rather than potentially being tempered by responses and dialogue with each other? An informed public exposed to conflicting opinions is the best chance for resolving political differences. These issues are important and warrant further discussion, but the current termination of Parler from the AWS platform does not seem to result in heightened concern that public discourse is truly harmed. There are alternatives to AWS, and in fact, Parler already seems to have found one that will bring it back. While there is a significant amount of talk of conservatives leaving Twitter, there seems to be little evidence that has happened on a large scale. For the moment, at least, the largest social media platforms seem to be retaining users on both sides of the political spectrum, which we believe is good for democracy.

See the original post here:

The Great Deplatforming: Can Digital Platforms Be Trusted As Guardians of Free Speech? - ProMarket

None of this could have happened 30 years ago, in pre-internet times. A group of small investors on a subreddit called r/WallStreetBets banded together to buy stock in gaming retailer GameStop. They hoped that together they could elevate the stock price so that short sellers, including hedge funds and institutional investors, would ultimately lose money.

Social media analytics firm Talkwalker says that chatter around GameStop began on Reddit in mid-January, and the increasing mentions since correlate with rising share price. GameStop stock began the year at $17.25, began rising in mid-January to hit $347.51 on January 27. The r/WallStreetBets investors, who used retail trading apps such as Robinhood and Webull to buy the stock, were making money and having fun sticking it to the Wall Street establishment investors, who were losing money on their short sales.

Its super easy for a bunch of 25-year-olds to transfer $200 from their bank account to buy some GameStop stock, and the trades are free, says Scott Tranter, the CEO of 0ptimus, a political data science firm that has provided market intelligence to hedge funds. Its like playing a video game on your phone.

The same gang-buying behavior began to spread to other stocks. The prices of stocks such as American Airlines, AMC, Blackberry, Best Buy and Tootsie Roll began rising as more small buyers bought in.

On Thursday, Wall Street appeared to be closing ranks to slow down the rebellion. Robinhood, which offers free stock trades but makes millions selling trading data to hedge funds and institutional investors, said it was pausing sales of GameStop and 11 other stocks through its app. Brokerage houses began placing guardrails around buys of GameStop. The trading apps M1, Webull, and Public did the same, but all three said they were forced to do so because the clearing house they use, Apex, made it more expensive to process buys. Later Thursday, all three announced that theyd made agreements with Apex to allow the buying and selling of GameStop shares. Robinhood, which has its own clearing house, said it would resume buying of GameStop and other affected stocks on Friday.

But the damage was done. The Empire struck back. GameStop stock lost 44% of its value during regular trading hours Thursday, closing down $152 at $193.60. Short sellers at least cut their losses, and r/WallStreetBets investors lost market value in their shares.

Naturally, the r/WallStreetBets traders were furious.They have their Robinhood accounts where trades are free, and they thought this was a free market economy, and as soon as they make some money, all of a sudden this app stops them from making money and then these people go bonkers, says Tranter.

The whole affair has the look and feel of class warfare, as many pointed out on Twitter.

These GameStop traders dont distinguish between hedge funds and the big banks that got bailed out after the 2008 crisis, and the banks that are screwing them on student loans, mortgage rates, and bank fees, Tranter says. These traders think its all just these rich people who rig the system and operate under a different set of rules when things dont go their waylike with these GameStop trades.

The strength of the r/WallStreetBets investors is in their numbers. Individually, they can play with much less money and much less risk.

If the stock price goes down, theyre only out a couple hundred dollars and can go to sleep knowing they did their part to stick it to The Man. Theyre just buying and selling stocks. Few if any hold enough money in reserve to play the extremely risky short-sell game the hedge funds and institutional investors play.

But the cumulative effect of their actions is large, and a real threat to big funds.

The GameStop stock will eventually return to a price more in line with the real value of the company, but the hedge funds dont have the luxury to wait. They have to close out their short-sell options every Friday. If the GameStop stock remains high on Friday, the big funds will be on the hook to pay for all the options they bought on the belief the stock would go down. That could cost millions.

Many of the r/WallStreetBets investor group say they plan to hold their GameStop positions at least until tomorrow. One large hedge fund, Melvin Capital, reportedly had to take an emergency loan to cover the cost of losses it took from short selling GameStop stock.

Robinhoods halt on stock buys Thursday may have been good for the big funds, but not everybody agrees it was the right thing to do. One thing is clear: gang investing is legal and isnt going to go away. Will Robinhood suddenly halt trading on certain stocks when this happens again?

The whole situation has attracted the attention of lawmakers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and some are calling for Congressional hearings. The White House has said it is watching the situation closely.

This . . . showed how the cards are stacked against the little guy in favor of billionaire Wall Street Traders, said Rep. Ro Khanna in a statement Thursday. While retail trading in some cases, like on Robinhood, blocked the purchasing of GameStop, hedge funds were still allowed to trade the stock. We need more regulation and equality in the markets.

Original post:

The great deplatforming comes to the stock market - Fast Company

These efforts to justify Trumps deplatforming by reference to social-media companies internal speech policiesand in particular, Facebooks willingness to have that decision reviewed by an independent, quasi-judicial Oversight Boardsuggest that the project of platform self-regulation is gaining traction. The important question facing internet users in the United States and around the world is whether the platforms self-regulation will be sufficient to protect the important democratic and expressive freedoms that the American free-speech tradition cares about.

There are reasons to be skeptical that self-regulation will be enough. Perhaps the primary reason is the fact that, notwithstanding their presumably sincere commitment to freedom of speech, social-media companies are, in the end, for-profit entities that offer a forum for speech in order to make money. Will they protect expressive freedom even when it conflicts with corporate profits? Conversely, outside the extraordinary circumstances of the Capitol invasion, will they take down genuinely harmful speech that brings readers to their platforms? Past history suggests that the answer to both of these questions will be no. Certainly the oftenad hoc and inconsistent decision making that the platforms demonstrated during the 2020 election campaign is alone concerning.

Given all of this, it is worth considering a third option that has been used in the past, and could once again be used, to protect expressive freedom from private power: laws requiring that the private media companies governing the mass public sphere abide by basic nondiscrimination and, often, due-process obligations. Even when the First Amendment intruded further into the private sphere than it does today, statutory nondiscrimination and due-process requirements were lawmakers primary tools to ensure that the private companies that controlled the telegraph and telephone wires, the radio and television airwaves, and the cable networks did not use their power to discriminate in favor of certain political viewpoints, or otherwise undermine the vitality of public debate. The most famous, and controversial, example of these laws was the Fairness Doctrine, which imposed extensive, if vague, nondiscrimination duties on radio and television broadcasters, and to an extent, cable-television companies, from the 1930s until the late 80s, when Ronald Reagans FCC repealed it. But the Fairness Doctrine is only one example of a much wider array of media nondiscrimination laws, many of which continue to ensure, to this day, that, as one senator put it in 1926, the few men who control the great publicity vehicles of radio and television do not limit the range of ideas and viewpoints that the public can hear.

In this context as well, a significant shift in political attitudes has occurred. For much of the 20th century, conservatives were the ones who railed against the constraints that federal laws like the Fairness Doctrine imposed on private media companies, and liberals and progressives defended these policies against attack. Today, however, many conservatives argue for the need to impose statutory nondiscrimination duties on social-media companies, while many liberals express alarm about the constraints such bills would impose on the freedom of private companies.

View original post here:

The Atlantic The Great Free-Speech Reversal - The Atlantic

Listen To The Full Interview Below:

On today's Guy Benson Show, Ben Shapiro, Editor Emeritus of TheDailyWire.com and host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" talked about the threat from the woke left to deplatform conservative media and conservative thought.

Ben Shapiro said,

"We all understand your goal here. Your goal is you lump us all together and then you seek to the deplatform, us, ban us. Get neutral service providers to stop providing us services. And you mentioned the, you mentioned the attempt to have social media take down particular websites or the attempts to go after, you know, podcasting. They're talking about taking away podcasting platforms now. They're talking about maybe Apple should delist particular podcasts. Or YouTube should delist particular content creators. They're suggesting that Amazon Web Services shouldn't just do what it did to Parler. They should do it pretty much everybody."

Shapiro added,

"This is the constant battle. And it's a bunch of us on one side who have literally never called for anybody to be the deplatform. I mean, that's the amazing thing about this. It's a completely one sided battle. It's one side that's just trying to survive and the other side is trying to wipe it out, ideologically speaking, and using all methods of power at its disposal, including corporate power. And then they wonder why conservatives feel like they're under assault. And then just because you, just because you seem paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. And right now, every major institution in this country is controlled not just by liberals, but unfortunately, increasingly by a woak left that is seeking the destruction of an entire side of the political debate. It's amazing."

Link:

Ben Shapiro On The 'Woke' Left's Quest To Deplatform Conservative Media - FOX News Radio

Listen to Post

Image is an artistic representation not meant to display accurate statistics. (Kristen Frier)

In 2018, a manager at The Teahouse restaurant in Vancouver was fired after refusing to serve a customer wearing a MAGA hat.

In a public statement justifying the decision, Sequoia Company of Restaurants said they cannot discriminate against someone based on their support for the current administration in the United States or any other bona fide political party.

Its wonderfully ironic that Sequoia used the term bona fide to describe a party whose president publicly lied so often that the Toronto Stars former Washington bureau chief had to turn fact-checking the administrations false and misleading claims into his full time job.

And according to the manager who was fired, the customer wasnt refused service because he said he voted for Trump or was wearing a GOP pin, but because he was wearing a specific hat, which has been repeatedly connected to intolerant and hateful ideologies and policies.

Because of this, I believe the manager was in the right. Opposing a symbol and what it stands for is not the same as opposing another persons ability to support a political belief.

MAGA hats and little elephant pins do not have the same historical narrative, nor do they represent the same collection of ideas. Combining the two gives a set of intolerant ideologies like misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia a semantic smokescreen, allowing them to masquerade as genuine political ideas on par with things like economic policies and the protection of personal rights and liberty.

On the other hand, politicizing intolerant ideas and misinformation can also be used as a way to avoid having to fairly respond to rational counterarguments, which is why hateful ideologies and conspiracy theories often come packaged with anti-intellectualism, or claims that science and academic rigour cannot be trusted. Using evidence-based arguments to disprove conspiracy theories, or using reason to deny justifications for bigotry can then be reframed as a confrontation of someones sanctified political views, and a denial of their right to freedom of speech.

Nothing about misinformation or bigotry meaningfully changes when they are presented as political views instead of rational positions but by attaching them to icons, slogans, and bright red hats, they are made manifest in a way that empowers them, and gives them legitimacy. This empowerment and legitimacy is one reason why political interests need flags, why companies need brands, and why sports teams need logos.

Its also why they need Twitter accounts, because symbols and ideas need an audience in order to exert influence, whether thats millions of followers on social media, or a dining room full of customers at The Tea House.

In 2018, U.S. researchers studying the use of #MAGA on Twitter found that mapping the growing network of users who posted it provided several unique and illustrative instances of both extremist conspiratorial conversational spaces and overtly White supremacist slogans, spaces, and networks.

The study says that #MAGA created an organizational space to engage in a global White supremacist discourse, which can be enabled by examining the technological and social affordances within Twitter.

Providing a platform for the expression of ideas is an implicit acceptance of their validity, and a statement that they deserve as much attention and amplification as any other ideas shared on that platform.

In this space, hatred and lies are presented as equals to respect and truth, when rationally-speaking, almost anyone would agree that they are not. Despite this, people rarely do anything about it, and even when they do, they can face accusations of political suppression like Twitter and the former manager at The Tea House did.

This is part of the paradox of tolerance theory coined by Karl Popper, an influential philosopher whose writing contributed to our modern concepts of truth, democracy, scientific philosophy, and how reality corresponds with facts.

In 1945, Popper wrote that if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

He supported suppressing intolerant philosophies as a last resort, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

This once-hypothetical scenario became a reality when Trumps supporters many of whom were proudly wearing MAGA hats fought their way into the U.S. capitol, and killed five people.

Twitters decision to deplatform those who work to spread intolerance or misinformation is a way of stopping that from happening again. Its a necessary last resort, when rational discourse becomes impossible, when hate suppresses reason, and when logic and mutual understanding of facts and truth are being undermined and disregarded.

Continued here:

Why deplatforming can be a necessary last resort - The Runner

Bitcoin Magazine has compiled this list to highlight the 21 companies and projects that we think did the most for Bitcoin in 2020. We admit that this grouping is far from perfect, but our team did its best to objectively curate those that made the biggest impact on the BTC ecosystem this year. Of course, this was a very difficult process and we decided to leave off some projects that may have had a massive impact on Bitcoin the past, but whose influence this year in particular did not rise to make the cut.

2020 may have been an incredibly trying year collectively for humans on planet earth, but it was also a historically productive year in the Bitcoin ecosystem. As the world continues to experience turmoil and tribulation, its clear that humanity will increasingly turn to the Bitcoin network. For that reason especially, we are honored to highlight these 21 incredible projects and companies for the massive impact that they made to the Bitcoin community this year plus, we rounded out the list with nine honorable mentions. The following are listed alphabetically, along with some basic info about what they are bringing to the world of Bitcoin and why we wanted to highlight them.

Bitcoin Magazine could not be more excited about Bitcoins forward march and we are thrilled to be part of such a vibrant community!

Website and Twitter

Category: Exchange

This year, Bisq provided the most censorship-resistant on-ramp and off-ramp for Bitcoin. Bisq is designed to be the exchange of last resort and it has made some massive strides in 2020, including adding SegWit support.

Website and Twitter

Category: Wallet

Blue Wallet shipped like crazy in 2020 and served as the most full-featured iOS bitcoin wallet on the market. It was also one of the most cutting-edge mobile wallets in Bitcoin.

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

BTCPays status as an open-source payment processor for sovereign businesses and individuals was more necessary than ever in 2020, when deplatforming and financial censorship became commonplace.

Website and Twitter

Category: Hardware

Coinkite was the first major hardware manufacturer to prove that a Bitcoin-only business model could be successful while increasing the security guarantees expected from a hardware wallet.

Website and Twitter

Category: Sats Back

Fold has revolutionized the use of sats as a universal rewards point, all the while preserving privacy and using a respectful business model that drives results for partners. Fold has consistently shipped great updates and features, culminating in a sats-back debit card launched in 2020.

Website and Twitter

Category: Exchange

In 2020, Hodl Hodl maintained a continuous focus on providing KYC-free and non-custodial options amid a landscape with increasing regulations and KYC requirements. This type of consistency is much needed in the Bitcoin space.

Website and Twitter

Category: Nonprofit

The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) launched the first 501(c)(3) Bitcoin development fund this year so that Bitcoiners and others can contribute to development in a tax-efficient manner and help build the ecosystem.

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

Lightning Labs spent 2020 building out open tools to help support independent Lightning node operators manage their nodes more effectively, like with Lightning Pool.

Website and Twitter

Category: N/A

MicroStrategy made waves this year when it announced that it had adopted a Bitcoin standard for its corporate treasury, converting more than $450 million to BTC at an average price of $11,111. It has since made two more massive bitcoin buys while announcing intentions on offering Bitcoin blockchain data products in the future.

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

This year, myNode provided a user-friendly and accessible platform for Bitcoiners to deploy their own, 24/7 dedicated Bitcoin node and use it easily.

Website and Twitter

Category: Exchange

River is the only bitcoin brokerage focused on serving high-net-worth individuals, which has built out an extremely impressive, cutting-edge bitcoin financial services offering with deep liquidity for large orders, native hardware wallet support, Lightning and auto dollar-cost averaging (DCA) features.

Website and Twitter

Category: Wallet

Samourai provides a full-featured, privacy-focused software stack for Bitcoiners, including a full-node implementation, mobile wallet, best-in-class ZeroLink-coordinated CoinJoin implementation, coin control with labeling, stealth addresses and P2P CoinJoin and PayJoin a full suite of offerings that proved critical to Bitcoin in 2020.

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

Slush Pool is the most innovative public mining pool in the space and in 2020, began championing a Stratum protocol improvement which should significantly improve the incentives between miners and pool operators.

Website and Twitter

Category: Wallet

Specter Desktop emerged as the easiest way to use your own bitcoin wallets directly with Bitcoin Core in 2020. This enabled a much more private and sovereign method than using hosted apps, while also providing much easier set up and use than previous Electrum-based alternatives.

Website and Twitter

Category: P2P Messaging

The first consumer-focused Lightning chap app, with an added focus on providing podcasters with the ability to broadcast their shows to audiences while receiving sats per minute, offers an end-to-end encrypted and open standard, routed natively through Bitcoins Lightning Network.

Website and Twitter

Category: Exchange

Under the direction of CEO Jack Dorsey, Square became the first legitimate fintech company to begin diving into the Bitcoin space. In 2020, bitcoin has become a major profit driver for Square and it has emerged as a leader in both bitcoin sales and Bitcoin development. Square Crypto has become a major player in sponsoring Bitcoin development, with over 19 grants given so far.

Website and Twitter

Category: Exchange

With a user experience on par with Venmo or Cash App, Strike is an incredibly easy-to-use, P2P payment app that is built on top of Bitcoin and the Lightning Network. Users can easily send dollars and withdraw bitcoin with Strike and it helped showcase the advances that Bitcoin has made as a payments technology this year.

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

Suredbits has emerged as the leaders in Discreet Log Contract (DLC) technology for Bitcoin in 2020. Throughout the year, the Suredbits team has pushed the envelope on Bitcoin-based oracle and Lightning initiatives.

Website and Twitter

Category: Exchange

In 2020, Swan Bitcoin established itself as a new and powerful player in the Bitcoin onramp and education space. Swan is a true Bitcoiners onramp that remained true to Bitcoin best practices throughout the year. Its talented team of builders and educators will continue to be a force evangelizing for Why bitcoin? and beyond.

Website and Twitter

Category: Financial Services

Unchained Capital is arguably the first Bitcoin-native financial services company. In 2020 it built on its fantastic 2019 momentum by shipping business infrastructure and features, as well as completely rebuilding its systems to support Coldcard and standardizing partially-signed bitcoin transaction (PSBT) multisig. Its blog also emerged as one of teh best educational resources available for Bitcoin.

Website and Twitter

Category: Wallet

Wasabi Wallet has done an incredible amount of work to make better Bitcoin privacy more accessible in 2020. This includes easy CoinJoin, coin selecting and labeling, native Bitcoin Core integrative, native Tor integration and native hardware wallet support. Wasabi Wallet is also one of the best bitcoin desktop wallets out there. In 2020, the Wasabi team shipped a completely redesigned version of the wallet and CoinJoin architecture.

Website and Twitter

Category: Custody

Website and Twitter

Category: Custody

Website and Twitter

Category: Gaming

Website and Twitter

Category: Wallet

Website and Twitter

Category: Data

Website and Twitter

Category: Financial Services

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

Website and Twitter

Category: Infrastructure

Ever thought about contributing to Bitcoin Magazine?

Bitcoin Magazineis currently seeking submissions for articles about Bitcoins unforgettable 2020, as well as whats in store for Bitcoin in 2021. If you have ideas for articles and want to contribute, contactjoe@bitcoinmagazine.com.

Read the original here:

The 21 Best Bitcoin Projects Of 2020 - Bitcoin Magazine

TipRanks

Its been up, up, and away for the markets since the end of September. Both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 are trading within 3% of their recent record high levels, after counting for daily fluctuations. Its a clear sign of a bullish mood among investors.And that bullish mood is finding fertile soil among Wall Streets stock analysts, who are not hesitant to make buy-side calls. There are some indications that the analysts are hedging their bets, however, as among the recent Buy reviews published several also offer strong dividend yields.Return-minded investors can find a degree of safety in high-yielding equities. The advantage of such a fundamentally defensive strategy is obvious: stocks that are rising now will bring the immediate gains of share appreciation, while strong dividends will provide a steady income stream regardless of market conditions.Using the data available in theTipRanks database, weve pulled up three stocks with high yields from 7% to 9%. Even better, these stocks are seen as Strong Buys by Wall Streets analysts. Lets find out why.Energy Transfer LP (ET)First up is Energy Transfer, a major name in North Americas hydrocarbon midstream sector. The companys primary network of assets covers 38 states and links three major oil and gas production regions in the Midwest-Appalachian and Texas-Oklahoma-Louisiana regions, along with North Dakota. Energy Transfer has smaller assets in the Colorado Rockies, Florida, and northern Alberta. These assets include pipelines, terminals, and storage tanks for natural gas and crude oil. The value of ETs services is clear from the companys $18 billion market cap and $54 billion in annual revenues.That value, along with the effects of the health and economic crises of 2020, are also clear from the companys recent third quarter earnings release. On the negative side, revenues were down 26% from the year-ago quarter, while EPS was down 18%. In absolute numbers, the top line came in at $9.96 million while the bottom line was reported at 30 cents per share. Both figures beat the forecasts by a wide margin.Beating the forecasts was a positive note. On another, the company reported $400 million in cost savings year-to-date, due to initiatives to control and streamline expenses. Total debt long-term debt remained stable at $54 million.In an announcement at the end of October, Energy Transfer declared its Q3 dividend, at 15.25 cents per common share. This was a 50% reduction from previous payments, and implemented for several reasons. Chief among those reasons is releasing cash for debt reduction. The dividend reduction also keeps the dividend yield in line with historical values (with the shares down this year, the yield was artificially inflated), and affordable at current income levels. The new dividend payment annualizes to 61 cents per common share, and even after the reduction gives a high yield of 8.8%.Covering the stock for Raymond James, analyst Justin Jenkins noted, We still see ET's top-tier integrated midstream footprint as a big positive, but risks are high and will remain so. Ultimately, we believe the core business and long-term free cash flow generation (which will improve dramatically in 2021) will help ET differentiate itself within the midstream space ET's large valuation discount to peers is unlikely to completely narrow in the near-term, we see the risk/reward as skewing positive in most scenarios.In line with these comments, Jenkins rates ET a Strong Buy, and his $9 price target suggests it has room for 26% growth in the year ahead. (To watch Jenkins track record, click here)Wall Street appears to be in broad agreement with Jenkins, as ET shares maintain a Strong Buy rating from the analyst consensus. There have been 8 recent reviews, including 7 Buys and a single Hold. The stocks $9.29 average price target is slightly more bullish than the Raymond James position, implying ~31% upside potential from the $7.09 trading price. (See ET stock analysis on TipRanks)Omega Healthcare (OHI)REITs are frequently known for high-yielding dividends, as tax regulations require these companies to return a minimum percentage of profits back to investors. Omega Healthcare, a real estate investment trust, is no different from its peers in that regard, but it does offer investors a twist. The companys portfolio consists of skilled nursing facilities and senior housing facilities, in an 83% to 17% split. The portfolio is valued at more than $10 billion. It totals 957 facilities in 40 states plus the UK.At the top line, Omega reported declines in Q3 revenues. The $119 million reported was down 53% sequentially and 16% year-over-year. That was the bad news. Adjusted funds from operations (FFO), a common metric used to judge REITs income levels, beat the forecast by 5%, coming in at 82 cents per share. In other positive notes this year, Omega has reported collected 99% of rents due in each quarter of 2020, and successfully issued, this past October, $700 million in Senior Notes at 3.375% and due in 2031. The company aims to use the funds raised to, first, repay existing debt, and second, to cover general operations.Omega currently pays out a 67-cent dividend per common share, and as held that payment steady for nearly three years. The company has a 6-year history of reliable dividend payments. The annualized payment is $2.68 per common share, making the yield 7.1%. This companys performance, including the reliable dividend, prompted JMP analyst Aaron Hecht to rate OHI an Outperform (i.e. Buy). His $43 price target indicates a 14% upside over the next 12 months. (To watch Hechts track record, click here)Backing his stance, Hecht writes, We believe COVID-19 vaccine deliveries will begin to arrive within the next two weeks and skilled nursing facility residents will be prioritized, based on vulnerability. We view this as a major positive for OHI as the largest owner of skilled nursing facilities in the United States. Although OHIs tenants have generally performed well during the pandemic, an increase in demand would be a derisking event We believe OHI deserves a slight premium to its three-year, pre-pandemic comps given demand tailwinds. We are buyers of the stock In the meantime, OHI has a Strong Buy rating from the analyst consensus, based on 8 reviews breaking down to 6 Buys and 2 Holds. Omegas share price has risen 28% since the first week of November, in the wake of the Q3 earnings. This has pushed the stocks trading price, currently $37.69, slightly above the $36.88 average price target. (See OHI stock analysis on TipRanks)Owl Rock Capital Corporation (ORCC)Last but not least is Owl Rock Capital, a specialty finance company based in New York. Owl Rock works in the middle-market finance sector, offering access to capital for mid-market companies to make acquisitions, fund operations, and conduct recapitalizations. The companys portfolio boasts $10.2 billion in total assets, of which 97% are senior secured assets. Owl Rock has current investments in 110 companies.Owl Rocks third quarter earnings came in slightly below expectations. EPS was 33 cents per share, down 3% sequentially and missing the estimates by 2 cents. Net asset value per share increased 1% quarter-over-quarter, from $14.52 at the end of June to $14.67 at the end of September. In a move to shore up liquidity, Owl Rock priced a public offering of $1 billion in 3.4% notes in the first week of December. The issue is due in 2026, and provides funds to paydown existing debt in the revolving credit facility and to fund general operations.Also in the first week of this month, Owl Creek confirmed that it is discussions to acquire Dyal Capital. The move would combine Owl Creeks direct lending platform with Dyals access to capital solutions.Owl Creek has a regular share dividend payment of 31 cents quarterly, which has been supplemented since May 2019 by a series of 6 special 8-cent dividend payments. Calculating the yield by the regular dividend, we find it at 9.6%, based on an annualized rate of $1.24 per common share. For comparison, the average dividend among S&P-listed companies stands at 2%.The review here was written by Devin Ryan, 5-star analyst with JMP Securities. Focusing on the Dyal Capital announcement, Ryan noted, While it is important to distinguish that this merger is between the management companies, not the BDC directly, and ultimately we do not expect much change, we do think a transaction could represent a positive outcome for ORCC shareholders over time.""We continue to view the opportunity in ORCC shares as attractive due to: 1) strong credit performance and expectations; 2) a well-positioned balance sheet; 3) the earnings scale-up as leverage moves to the target 1.0x by 2H21; and 4) an increase in the yield profile of the portfolio through a higher mix of unitranche loans," the analyst concluded. To this end, Ryan rates Owl Creeks shares an Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his $14.50 price target suggests a 13% upside in the coming year. (To watch Ryans track record, click here)Owl Creeks Strong Buy consensus rating is based on 6 reviews. These show a 5 to 1 split between Buys and Holds. ORCC is trading at $12.78, and its $13.90 average price target implies ~9% upside. (See ORCC stock analysis on TipRanks)To find good ideas for dividend stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights.Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

See the article here:

Waters Tells Biden to Rescind OCC Crypto Guidance; May Be Part of Anti-Trump, Anti-Crypto Offensive - Yahoo Finance