England Vs. Denmark – What The Stats Say

England Vs. Denmark – What The Stats Say

England find themselves in a second consecutive major semi-final today when they face off against Denmark at Wembley. The Danes are on a great run, especially considering the trauma the squad experienced in their first game when midfielder Christian Eriksen suffered a cardiac arrest while on the pitch.

While they are still the underdogs for the tie, Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes that Denmark will be far from a walkover for the Three Lions and could provide an upset similar to England’s fate in their last semi-final against Croatia.

Looking back over the previous games between the two teams, history is at least on England’s side.

As this infographic shows, of the 21 matches, England have won 12, 4 were draws and Denmark claimed 4 victories.

Infographic: England vs. Denmark - what the stats say | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

More recently though, England failed to beat Denmark in their two Nations League matches in 2020, losing once and settling for a draw.

However, Goldman Sachs’ forecasters have England winning 2-1…

And going on to win it all…

As Goldman says “it’s (probably) coming home!”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 09:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36nNkvi Tyler Durden

14-Year-Old Girl Sentenced In Death Of DC Uber Eats Driver

14-Year-Old Girl Sentenced In Death Of DC Uber Eats Driver

Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

A 14-year-old girl has been sentenced to juvenile detention over the fatal carjacking of a Uber Eats driver in Washington D.C.

The girl, who was 13 at the time of the incident on March 23, is one of two teenagers charged in connection to the death of 66-year-old Mohammad Anwar, a grandfather and immigrant from Pakistan. The identities of the two girls have not been disclosed by officials.

She will remain in juvenile detention until she is 21. According to NBC Washington, the sentence was the maximum sentence requested by prosecutors.

Alongside a 15-year-old, she used a taser on Anwar during a carjacking attempt near Nationals Park, police said.

A police homicide detective, Chad Leo, testified in court late March that witnesses told him the teen girls and the driver were arguing loudly. The witnesses said the driver complained the girls were attempting to steal his car.

Leo said one witness shot a video showing one girl behind the car’s steering wheel with a Taser as the other girl partially wedged between the open driver’s door sitting on top of the other girl, according to Fox Baltimore. Social media footage reviewed by The Epoch Times showed one girl starting the car as the other girl was behind the wheel as Anwar was hanging on.

The original witness’ twitter account has since been suspended!

Leo cited footage showing the car speeding down Van Street before hitting a tree box.

The car then took a right turn on N Street before it hit other cars and flipped on its side, throwing Anwar from the vehicle. According to the Fox affiliate, he suffered broken ribs, a broken pelvis, and other significant injuries before he was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead.

“When Mr. Anwar called out for help and bystanders came, she chose to lie about whose car it was,” a prosecutor said Tuesday, reported WUSA9.

“[She] chose to grab the steering wheel, chose to put the car in gear, chose to repeatedly tell [the other girl] to go.”

GoFundMe for Anwar’s family raised $1 million.

“Anwar was a beloved husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and friend who always provided a smile when you needed one. He leaves behind a family, near and far, who cherish, love, and miss him dearly,” his family wrote on the GoFundMe page.

Last month, the 14-year-old girl pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The second teenager received the same sentence in June. Other charges against the teenagers were dropped as part of their plea deals with prosecutors.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 08:58

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ADDyDu Tyler Durden

Treasury Yields Plunge Below 1.30% To 5 Month Lows, 3-Sigma Below FV According To JPM

Treasury Yields Plunge Below 1.30% To 5 Month Lows, 3-Sigma Below FV According To JPM

After a modest stabilization overnight, the collapse in 10Y yields has resumed this morning tracking the latest drop in oil, which is down following a WSJ report that the UAE plans to “sell as much crude as possible before demand dries up” and aims to boost production and market share unilaterally amid high demand in threat to OPEC stability.

As a result of the latest deflationary gust, 10Y yields have dropped below 1.30%, sliding to the lowest since February 19…

… as the short squeeze discussed yesterday – as a reminder the latest JPM Treasury Client Survey found a near record number of shorts – accelerates.

Indeed, in a note from JPM’s rates strategists led by Jay Berry, titled aptly enough “Prediction? Pain”, the bank writes that “the reaction of the Treasury market to data over the last week and the lack of reaction in the TIPS market indicates this move has been exaggerated by short covering.” This in turn he left the left 10-year Treasury yields about 25bp, or 3-standard deviations below their fair value according to the JPM model.

Needless to say, this is surprising to JPMorgan, which adds that although the data flow since late last week came in weaker than consensus expectations, “the 10+bps decline in 10-year yields since Friday morning seems outsized all considered.” Underscoring the confusion, JPM points to medium-term market-based inflation expectations which have barely budged the last two days (even with crude prices sliding), and the market-implied timing to Fed liftoff has moved little as well. 

To JPM, “net of these factors, Treasuries have diverged further from our fair-value framework. Though yields tend to mean revert with relatively low frequency, 10-year Treasury yields now appear 25bp too low relative to their drivers, a 3-standard deviation divergence, and the largest such deviation since the early fall 2020.”

As a result, JPM concludes that “position technicals are exaggerating the moves in Treasury yields as of late: our weekly Treasury Client Survey has remained short relative to average levels over the last year (Exhibit A1), and we will be interested to see how positions have evolved when the next survey is released tomorrow morning.”

Separately, JPM also writes that the release of the June FOMC meeting minutes will be illustrative: “it’s our sense the leadership is not represented in the 7 participants who have forecast a hike in 2022, and we will look for confirmation in the minutes.  We will also look for more clarity on how the FOMC defines “substantial further progress” as we progress toward a potential taper announcement later this year.  Finally, we will be interested to see if there is broad based support to taper MBS more aggressively than Treasuries. We do not think this view is widely held by the Committee and we expect the Fed to taper Treasuries in a 2- to-1 ratio to MBS, proportional to the pace of purchases.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 08:41

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jS5duw Tyler Durden

Oil Tumbles After Report Confirms UAE Plan To Unilaterally ‘Open The Taps’

Oil Tumbles After Report Confirms UAE Plan To Unilaterally ‘Open The Taps’

We want a bigger market share, to monetize as much as we can from our reserves, especially when we have spent billions developing them.”

That is the not so subtle quote WSJ reports from a senior UAE oil executive, confirming the widening split between the Saudis (OPEC) and its long-time ally.

Simply put, UAE’s strategy is – sell as much crude as possible before demand dries up – and raises growing concerns that the cartel is at risk.

WSJ reports that while the country isn’t worried about a sudden drop in demand, people familiar with the new tack say the country wants to pump and sell as much as it can now, when demand and prices are strong. Proceeds will help it wean its economy off oil.

“This is the time to maximize the value of the country’s hydrocarbon resources, while they have value,” said a person briefed on the U.A.E.’s strategy.

“The aim of the investment is to generate revenue for the diversification of the economy, both for investment in new energy and, as importantly, in new revenue streams.”

The market reaction was to erase the bounce back in crude prices and return WTI to yesterday’s post-OPEC+ ‘no deal’ lows…

Of course, broken cartel or not, it’s clear that this could all be one big negotiating tactic…

In the meantime, the Biden admin is anxiously watching gas prices in the US.. but for now has not publicly denigrated OPEC+’s actions (or lack thereof).

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 08:38

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jSXQ5U Tyler Durden

The Backward K And Coming Earnings Surprises

The Backward K And Coming Earnings Surprises

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The broad economic shutdowns and psychological impacts of the pandemic, along with massive doses of fiscal stimulus doled out directly to consumers greatly altered consumer and business spending habits.

As we approach the second-quarter earnings season, we are likely to see a good number of surprises, especially on a year-over-year basis. In the second quarter of 2020, some companies were struggling to keep the lights on.  Others were having trouble producing products fast enough to keep up with insatiable demand.

As our friend Peter Atwater correctly predicted in early 2020, the pandemic and its recovery would affect the economy in a K-shaped fashion. Essentially, there will be winners and losers.

With the pandemic abating and economic and consumer spending habits normalizing, some of those divergences from last year are reversing. Might we say the K is turning into a backward K?

This piece compares two companies to appreciate how and when the pandemic affected their revenues and stock price. It then looks forward to the question we face over the coming quarters; how and when earnings and share prices normalize. The analysis will allow you to prepare for earnings announcements from a host of greatly affected companies.

Graphing Distortions

Before presenting the two companies, it is worth sharing a few graphs. While just the tip of the iceberg, the graphs highlight the massive distortions caused by the pandemic and stimulus. We separate the charts between the Haves and the Have Nots.

The Haves:

The Have Nots:

Clorox

Clorox started in 1913 as the Electro-Alkaline Company. The company sells a wide range of popular consumer products, focusing on cleaning and disinfecting products.

Clorox Wipes were worth their weight in gold during the early days of COVID. It was common to find empty shelves in the supermarkets where Wipes should have been. As a result of surging sales of Wipes and Bleach, and other disinfectant products, CLX stock price jumped in the spring of 2000.

Today store shelves are fully stocked, and concerns about getting COVID from surface-born germs are fading quickly. Per Lisah Burhan, CLX Investor Relations: “The lower shipments are a result of demand normalization in bleach and Pine-Sol relative to the year-ago period when consumers turned to these products given the persistent out-of-stocks in wipes and sprays at the onset of the pandemic.”

With the normalization process underway and pandemic conditions abating, we compare some fundamental data for CLX before the pandemic and during the pandemic. This analysis allows us better to evaluate CLX’s price and potential for earnings surprises.

Fundamentals CLX

The graph below charts CLX revenue and income over the last 30 years. The pandemic-related spike in revenue and income is evident. From 2012-2019, revenue and income grew by 1.6% and 6.4%, respectively, on an average annualized basis. From 2020 through the first quarter of 2021, they rose 17.7% and 10.3% on an annualized basis. The pandemic was great for CLX’s bottom line.

The pandemic equally benefited shareholders. From January 2020 to August 2020, CLX shot up 60%. Compare that eight-month gain to the average annualized return of 8.4% for the three years before the pandemic.

Because of the predictable trending nature of CLX’s sales, we compare its current share price to expected sales to help us arrive at a fair value. We can then value the stock assuming revenue and Price to Sales (P/S) ratio reverts to its pre-pandemic trend.

As shown below, the bump in quarterly revenue and stock price during 2020 and the partial normalization is clear. The dotted blue line indicates the revenue trend from 2015 through 2019.

CLX revenues will likely return to trend as the demand for their products normalizes. Accordingly, we should expect revenue to decline from $1,781 to $1,591. In the fourth quarter of 2019, its P/S ratio was 12.65. At its current price and trend revenue ($1,591), CLX has a P/S ratio of 14.06.

CLX is trading at an 11% premium if we assume its revenue and P/S ratio return to pre-pandemic trends.

Sysco

Sysco (SYY) is an acronym for the Systems and Services Company. SYY is involved in the marketing and distribution of food products and kitchen equipment to restaurants and other institutional foodservice clients. Sysco is not as well known by the public as CLX as they predominately service businesses. Regardless, SYY has a market cap of $40 billion, about twice that of CLX.

Not surprisingly, SYY struggled during the pandemic. Many of its clients were either shut down or relegated to a fraction of their prior business. With people eating out again and offices opening back up, SYY is on the road to recovery.

CEO Kevin Hourican made the following comments during their latest earnings call in May of 2021: “We see tremendous pent-up demand in the food-away-from-home sector. Our data confirms that consumers are eager to eat at restaurants as soon as restrictions are reduced. Strong sales results and long wait times are common in restaurants operating within geographies that have limited restrictions. The third quarter can be aptly described is difficult at the beginning and robust at the end.”

As we did with CLX, let’s compare fundamental data for SYY before the pandemic and during the pandemic.

Fundamentals SYY

The graph below charts SYY revenue and income over the last 30 years. The pandemic-related reduction of revenue and income is startling. From 2012-2019, revenue and income grew by 5.4% and 4.8%, respectively, on an average annualized basis. From 2020 through the first quarter of 2021, revenue shrunk 22.4% on an annualized basis, and net income, which was running $6.7 billion per year, went negative.

The pandemic was painful for SYY shareholders. Between January and March of 2020, the stock price was cut in half, falling to a price last seen in early 2016.  Before the pandemic, SYY was returning 15% per year on average.

Like CLX, SYY is in a relatively stable and predictable business with dependable revenue trends. The reliable trending nature of their business allows us to do the same analysis we did with CLX.

The following graph zooms in on the data in this analysis. The drop in quarterly revenue and stock price during 2020 and the partial recovery are apparent. The dotted blue line is the revenue trend from 2015 through 2019.

If SYY sales return to normal, we should expect revenue to increase sharply from $11,824 to $16,278. In the final quarter of 2019, its P/S ratio was 3.27. At its current price and with trend revenue, its P/S ratio is 2.37.

SYY is trading at a 27% discount if we assume its business and valuations return to pre-pandemic trends.

Summary

SYY shares are about 10% below their value on 12/31/2019. At the same time, the S&P 500 Index is up about 25%. SYY’s revenue and income remain well off the levels of 2019. How and when SYY recovers is challenging to estimate. However, if they return to 2019 earnings levels more quickly than expected, the share price has significant upside potential. A strong earnings report will likely accompany a surge in the stock price.

Conversely, CLX will try to maintain higher revenue and sales despite what is likely a trend back to pre-pandemic norms. CLX share prices run the risk normalization occurs quicker than expected, and the pandemic premium vanishes in a short period.

SYY and CLX are just two examples of companies that can surprise investors with upcoming earnings announcements. The point is not to single out companies and make predictions but to highlight there are a host of companies with a potential for earnings surprises, positively and negatively. Economic activity a year ago was irregular and economic activity this last quarter is equally unusual.

Understanding what has transpired may open the door to several opportunities and a few stocks to stay away from.

Good luck in what is likely to be a widely divergent earnings season.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 08:19

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ynHN46 Tyler Durden

Futures Back At All Time Highs Ahead Of FOMC Minutes

Futures Back At All Time Highs Ahead Of FOMC Minutes

One day after the S&P broke its near-record winning streak of 7 consecutive all time highs, futures resumed their grind higher as world stocks steadied below recent record peaks, while the Nasdaq jumped to a fresh all time high as the continued drop in Treasury yields supported tech-heavy growth stocks, with investors eyeing today’s June FOMC minutes for clues on policy support going forward. At 730 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were up 21 points, or 0.06%, S&P 500 e-minis were up 8.25 points, or 0.19%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were up 89.25 points, or 0.59%. 10Y yields slipped for the seventh straight session, amid concerns about the economic outlook and coronavirus variants, helping Nasdaq futures rise premarket.

In per-market trading, oil giants Exxon, Schlumberger, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental and Halliburton Co rose between 0.7% and 3.4%, tracking crude prices, which rebounded after Tuesday’s rout. China’s market regulator said it has fined a number of internet companies including Didi Global, Tencent and Alibaba for failing to report earlier merger and acquisition deals for approval. As a result, the turmoil in Didi (DIDI) shares continued with the stock falling another 4.3%, while Alibaba edged 0.4% higher. Chinese hip-hop promoter Pop Culture Group (CPOP) surges 31% in the latest volatile move since the stock debuted last week. OncoSec Medical (ONCS) shares rally 38% in premarket trading after the firm entered a pact with Merck for a metastatic melanoma treatment trial.

Markets are stabilizing after Tuesday’s mini drop, which was sparked by concerns about the outlook for the global economy as new virus variants emerge, which sent 10Y yield plunging. Investors are taking some heart from soft U.S. data that suggests the Fed will continue offering monetary support for now. But with global stocks near all-time highs and inflationary pressures in focus, they’ll pay close attention to the wording of the minutes from the central bank’s last meeting for clues on the policy path.

“Signs that the recovery is not too hot nor too cold imply that policy normalization could be very gradual,” Credit Agricole CIB strategists led by Jean-François Paren wrote in a note. “This supports our view that while the Fed will discuss tapering from the upcoming meetings, the actual tapering is unlikely to start before next year.”

The Fed minutes, due at 2 p.m. ET, are expected to offer clues on how the U.S. central bank may begin to pare its large bond-buying program amid signs of quickening economic recovery. Wall Street has been concerned over runaway inflation, with investors moving between economy-linked value stocks and growth names in the past few sessions, however in recent weeks sentiment has pulled a U-turn and markets are suddenly more concerned about stagflation and/or outright deflation – judging by asset prices – even as actual prices continue to soar.

“If the minutes are really pushing towards tapering, we are going to see gold rise, the dollar rise and equities fall,” said Giles Coghlan, chief currency analyst at HYCM.

The MSCI world stocks index was little changed at 723.52, after hitting a record high of 726.11 early on Tuesday.

The Stoxx Europe 600 Index climbed, led by gains in technology shares following the Nasdaq 100’s rise to a record on Tuesday. German stocks rose 0.83% and Britain’s FTSE 100 was up 0.5%. Commodity sectors outperformed, with Royal Dutch Shell Plc rising more than 3% after saying it will boost returns to shareholders. German industry output fell 0.3% month-on-month in May, below analysts’ expectations, data on Wednesday showed.

“Slowing economic momentum in Germany and the euro zone would point towards the ECB considering a tapering of its asset purchasing programme as part of PEPP (Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme) at an even later stage than expected, in particular against the background of the spreading Delta variant,” Commerzbank analysts said in a note.

Earlier in the session, Asian equities declined, hurt by China’s widening corporate crackdown and a selloff in cyclical shares. Tencent and Alibaba were the biggest drags on the MSCI Asia Pacific Index, while the Hang Seng Tech Index fell for a sixth straight day. The losses came after China issued a warning to its biggest firms, vowing to tighten oversight of data security and overseas listings. “With the tightening oversight, it’s difficult for Chinese tech stocks to have a short-term rebound,” said Steven Leung, executive director at UOB Kay Hian (Hong Kong) Ltd. “Even though tech companies in China have been under that kind of regulation for a quarter or even half a year, regulators won’t walk away.” The deepening selloff in Chinese tech stocks comes as Asian equities continue to lag their peers in the U.S. and Europe this year. That’s even as the MSCI Asia Pacific Index capped a fifth straight quarter of gains last week. The regional benchmark is down about 1.3% so far in July. Consumer discretionary and financials were the worst-performing sectors on the Asian gauge Wednesday. Equity gauges in cyclical-heavy markets of Singapore and Japan were the biggest losers in the region, with the Straits Times Index falling as much as 1.8%. China’s stock benchmark rose. The S&P 500 slipped Tuesday, snapping its seven-day winning streak. Treasury yields also dropped

In rates, 10Y Treasury yields were steady after hitting February lows in U.S. hours, while those on core European bonds dipped. Treasury 10-year yields around 1.348% are little changed from Tuesday after falling as low as 1.328%; 10-year bunds outperform by ~1bp while gilts keep pace; curve maintains Tuesday’s bull- flattening move. Treasury yields were mixed but within 1bp of Tuesday’s closing levels after having erased losses incurred during Asia-session. As bunds continued to outperform over the European morning, U.S. 10-year yield reached a four-month low. Focal point for U.S. session is 2pm ET release of minutes of June FOMC meeting which catalyzed aggressive flattening in the yield curve: the minutes will be searched mainly for clues about the eventual pace and timing of QE tapering

In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index drifted after rising 0.4% on Tuesday, the most since June 17; most Group-of-10 currencies were steady or inched higher following yesterday’s broad losses against the greenback and the euro hovered in a narrow $1.1812-1.1834 range. Expectations of a hawkish Fed tone helped the dollar rally against a basket of currencies to 92.541, up from a low of 92.003 on Tuesday and moving towards recent three-month highs. The euro steadied at $1.1819, near its lowest in three months, after data on Tuesday showed investor sentiment in Germany fell by much more than expected in July. The pound was little changed, stabilizing after its swings on Tuesday, with focus on how the U.K. will deal with spread of the coronavirus as it eases restrictions. The Kiwi led gains as Westpac joined ASB and BNZ in forecasting rate hikes starting November; Australian and New Zealand bonds rose, tracking an overnight rally in Treasuries and losses in Asian shares. The yen lead losses, falling back from a two-week high as a decline in U.S. Treasury yields halted in Asian trading.

“The markets are looking for some clarity but we are not holding our breath,” said Ned Rumpeltin, European head of currency strategy at TD Securities. “Strategic ambiguity on the Fed’s part is probably where they are best served.”

In commodities, oil prices rose in New York, recouping some of the previous day’s losses, as prices remained volatile while an impasse prevents OPEC+ from boosting output. Saudi Energy Minister said there is no similarity between the situation OPEC is in now compared to March last year, while he added that the current agreement will remain in place, according to Energy Intel’s Bakr.  Spot gold and silver are firmer this morning experiencing a similar level of consolidation where gold has, once again, reclaimed the USD 1800/oz mark. Such upside comes amid somewhat mixed but relatively contained USD performance while the US yield curve is, for the most part, subdued and likely lending support to the metal. Elsewhere, base metals remain supported this morning amid reports that China has completed the release of copper, aluminium and zinc from their State reserves. However, participants remain attentive to the signalling that releases will continue from national reserves in the near-term.

To the day ahead now, and the highlight will likely be the release of the FOMC minutes from the June meeting, whilst the main data highlight is the US job openings data for May. Otherwise from Europe we’ll get German industrial production and Italian retail sales for May, and the European Commission will be publishing their latest economic forecasts. Finally, the Fed’s Bostic will be speaking.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures up 0.1% to 4,338.50
  • STOXX Europe 600 up 0.5% to 458.24
  • MXAP down 0.4% to 205.22
  • MXAPJ down 0.2% to 687.43
  • Nikkei down 1.0% to 28,366.95
  • Topix down 0.9% to 1,937.68
  • Hang Seng Index down 0.4% to 27,960.62
  • Shanghai Composite up 0.7% to 3,553.72
  • Sensex up 0.2% to 52,970.67
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 up 0.9% to 7,326.85
  • Kospi down 0.6% to 3,285.34
  • Brent Futures up 0.8% to $75.09/bbl
  • Gold spot up 0.5% to $1,806.09
  • U.S. Dollar Index little changed at 92.54
  • German 10Y yield fell -1.0 bps to -0.278%
  • Euro little changed at $1.1822
  • Brent Futures up 0.8% to $75.09/bbl

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • European Union officials markedly raised their outlook for the euro-area economy and said there’s a higher risk of inflation taking hold as loosening virus restrictions allow demand to snap back. The European Commission increased its growth forecast for the currency bloc to 4.8% from 4.3% previously, while predicting better performance in 2022 too
  • Labor markets in developed nations have recovered only half of the loss of employment they suffered in the pandemic, with the young and low-skilled hurt most. That’s the conclusion of a 400-page study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
  • As soon as OPEC+ negotiations fell apart on Monday, stoking fears of a supply squeeze and sending oil prices soaring, U.S. shale executives began hitting the phones to lock in prices for the oil they plan to produce next year and protecting themselves against a potential market slump
  • U.K. house prices fell for the first time in five months in June, an indication the property market may have lost momentum as a tax incentive was due to come to an end
  • China, the world’s top commodities consumer, pledged to release more base metals from its state reserves after completing a first batch of sales in its latest effort to rein in surging raw material costs
  • India’s central bank may signal the start of a normalization of its accommodative monetary policy at its August meeting amid accelerating inflation and risks from surging oil prices, according to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.
  • The longest slump in Asia’s riskiest bonds in almost three years is starting to attract investors who see increasing value in some of the securities. Average prices of high-yield dollar notes from Asian issuers have continued to decline this week after tumbling for five straight weeks in the longest such stretch since November 2018, according to a Bloomberg Barclays index
  • Futures on China’s 10-year benchmark debt surged by the most since December after a former central bank official called for the People’s Bank of China to cut interest rates in the second half of the year to safeguard the economy’s recovery and create policy room to deal with the Federal Reserve’s future tightening
  • A gauge of Chinese technology stocks traded in Hong Kong fell as much as 1.9% on Wednesday to approach its lowest level since November. The index has slumped more than 30% since its February high, while a measure of Chinese American depositary receipts tumbled 3% on Tuesday. Didi Global Inc., which is the focus of a cybersecurity probe, sank 20% in New York

Quick look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

Asian equity markets traded subdued after the similar picture in global counterparts as risk appetite was dampened by China crackdown concerns and soft US ISM data, with the recent slump in oil prices amid OPEC uncertainty, and looming FOMC Minutes adding to the cautiousness. This resulted in most major US indices finishing in the red although growth and tech were underpinned by the lower yield environment to lift the Nasdaq to fresh record highs. ASX 200 (+0.9%) bucked the trend to reclaim the 7,300 level despite the announcement of a lockdown extension in Sydney for a third week, as the index was buoyed by strength in tech which found inspiration from Wall St counterparts whilst the largest weighted financials sector was also kept afloat. Nikkei 225 (-1.0%) was pressured by the weight of currency inflows and ongoing COVID-19 concerns with Osaka also seeking an extension of the quasi-emergency restrictions, while KOSPI (-0.6%) was subdued with index top component Samsung Electronics failing to benefit from better-than-expected preliminary Q2 results as the virus situation clouded over investor sentiment after daily infections increased by over 1,200 which was near South Korea’s record high. Hang Seng (-0.4%) and Shanghai Comp. (+0.7%) were mixed amid China crackdown concerns after its cabinet announced it will take tough action on illegal activities in the securities market and will step up regulation of Chinese firms listed abroad. In addition, the NDRC announced enhanced security checks for buildings taller than 100 metres and stated that construction of skyscrapers with a height of 500+ metres will not be approved, while losses in Hong Kong were exacerbated by pressure in the large oil names, weakness in Geely Auto after its sales dropped 9% and with Tencent suffering from the increased Beijing tech scrutiny which pressured its shares to a YTD low. Finally, 10yr JGBs tracked the advances in T-notes which had been spurred by haven flows and weak data to push the US 10yr yield to its lowest since February. The BoJ were also present in the market today for over JPY 900bln of JGBs and although it slightly reduced purchases in 5yr-10yr maturities, this was inline with its previously flagged buying intentions for Q3.

Top Asian News

  • Japan Expected to Deliver at Least $180 Billion in New Stimulus
  • Nike Shares Lose Out to China Rivals After Xinjiang Accusations
  • China Imposes Penalties on 22 Antitrust Cases in Internet Sector
  • Modi Set to Revamp Cabinet to Repair Popularity Ahead of Polls

European equities (Stoxx 600 +0.4%) trade on the front-foot in an attempt to claw back some of yesterday’s losses with fresh macro drivers otherwise relatively light. The attempted rebound can be observed via sectoral performance in the region with today’s gainers predominantly comprised of yesterday’s pro-cyclical laggards as Basic Resources and Oil & Gas sit near the top of the pile in the Stoxx 600. That said, Tech names remain on a firm footing on both sides of the pond with NQ (+0.5%) outpacing its US counterparts (ES +0.1%, RTY U/C). Today’s docket is a relatively light one with the main highlight being the release of the FOMC minutes from the June meeting. Expectations are for the account to reflect the common view that tapering discussions should begin in the coming meetings. Elsewhere in Europe, Travel & Leisure names lag peers despite reports suggesting that UK ministers are set to sign off on a plan that would permit people to travel from amber-list nations without having to isolate for up to ten days. Concerns over the Delta-variant continue to persist with FT research highlighting that holiday-hot spot Spain’s COVID-19 rate is the highest in mainland Europe amid mounting infections amongst younger, unvaccinated people. Individual movers include SAP (+3.7%) who are benefiting from the broad strength in tech and a broker upgrade at BofA and accompanying price target upgrade to EUR 150 from EUR 92. Shell (+2.2%) sits at the top of the FTSE 100 after announcing that it will be moving to the next stage of its capital allocation framework and, subject to approval, increase shareholder distributions to 20-30% of CFFO from the Q2-report.

Top European News

  • Euro-Area Outlook Raised by EU With Warning on Inflation Risks
  • Payments Firm Wise’s Listing Boosts U.K. Tech Hub Ambitions
  • U.K. House Prices Fall First Time Since January, Halifax Says
  • Renishaw Calls Off Sale Over Lack of Suitable Proposals

In FX, some calm and consolidative trade after Tuesday’s frenetic session when the Greenback was grounded early on, but staged a dramatic recovery on a combination of factors including safe-haven demand amidst pronounced risk aversion in several asset classes and a deep pull-back in crude prices from new multi-year peaks. The index remains anchored around 92.500, though considerably more contained for now between 92.606-462 parameters compared to 92.665-003 extremes yesterday and the Dollar is more mixed vs major and EM peers as broad sentiment improves. Ahead, weekly mortgage applications and Redbook sales before JOLTS, the FOMC minutes and another speech from Fed’s Bostic.

  • NZD/AUD – Still a long way to go for full redemption, but the Kiwi and Aussie have both clawed back some lost ground against their US rival to leave the former on a firmer footing above 0.7000 following ANZ joining others now looking for the RBNZ to begin tightening in November. Meanwhile, the latter is probing 0.7500 again irrespective of a slowdown in AIG’s services index and a softer PBoC Cny midpoint fix overnight, but could be capped by hefty option expiry interest from the round number to 0.7505 in 1.3 bn.
  • CAD/NOK/RUB/MXN – The Loonie and Norwegian Krona along with fellow petro currencies like the Russian Rouble and Mexican Peso are looking a bit more composed following the aforementioned oil spill that hit them especially hard on Tuesday, as WTI and Brent bounce off lows approaching Usd 73/brl and Usd 74/brl respectively. Usd/Cad is straddling 1.2450 after rebounding to within a whisker of 1.2500 and looking towards Canada’s Ivey PMIs for further impetus, while Eur/Nok is back under 10.3100 with extra incentive via much stronger than expected monthly mainland growth and an acceleration in GDP overall. Elsewhere, Usd/Rub has retreated through 74.4000 and Usd/Mxn is eyeing 20.0000 again.
  • CHF/EUR/GBP/JPY – All narrowly mixed vs the Buck, as the Franc pares declines from circa 0.9251 and Euro meanders inside some decent technical levels in the form of a Fib retracement at 1.1837 and an effective 1.1808-7 double bottom, while the Pound pivots 1.3800 after topping out precisely halfway within its recent range, at 1.3815 and feeling some pressure from RHS demand in Eur/Gbp. Elsewhere, the Yen has handed back some gains after breaching 110.50, but not sustaining momentum to clear late June highs convincingly with Usd/Jpy hovering near 107.80 in advance of Japanese trade and current account data tomorrow.

In commodities, WTI and Brent have continued to consolidate from the losses seen in yesterday’s session after the initial rally fizzled out amid the broader risk tone and lack of OPEC+ developments; benchmarks posting gains in excess of USD 1.00/bbl at present. Updates on the OPEC+ front remain few and far between; however, as the current agreement runs until month-end the UAE and Saudi/Russia still have over 3-weeks to come to an agreement. ABN AMRO’s scenario analysis has a 50% chance of OPEC+ coming to an agreement before August, 30% probability that OPEC+ is dissolved as there is no deal and the remaining 20% to the current agreement being extended. For these scenarios respectively the bank says prices would ‘fall’, ‘fall sharply’ and rise significantly to at least USD 86-87/bbl. OPEC aside, attention has recently turned to reports of drone/rocket attacks on two US bases in Syria and Iraq, details around this are sparse but initial indications are that the attack at the Syria, al-Omar oil field have been successfully intercepted – thus far, crude is unreactive to this. Turning to metals, spot gold and silver are firmer this morning experiencing a similar level of consolidation where gold has, once again, reclaimed the USD 1800/oz mark. Such upside comes amid somewhat mixed but relatively contained USD performance while the US yield curve is, for the most part, subdued and likely lending support to the metal. Elsewhere, base metals remain supported this morning amid reports that China has completed the release of copper, aluminium and zinc from their State reserves. However, participants remain attentive to the signalling that releases will continue from national reserves in the near-term.

US Event Calendar

  • 7am: July MBA Mortgage Applications -1.8%, prior -6.9%
  • 10am: May JOLTs Job Openings, est. 9.33m, prior 9.29m
  • 2pm: June FOMC Meeting Minutes

DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

Let’s make no bones about this, this is a blatant attempt at getting as many votes as possible. The latest Institutional Investor’s Global Fixed Income Research Rankings has now begun. It is a very competitive landscape and we’d like to do as well as possible. It’s the Oscars for the research world and I need to see if I can still get in my virtual tuxedo after lockdown.

So if you value our research we would really appreciate you voting. The main categories you can vote for me are in this pdf (link here). The most important in Europe are Cross Asset Strategy, Fixed Income Strategy, HY Strategy and IG Strategy. In the US its Cross Asset Strategy. Everyone should be able to also vote in Global categories where I’m up for Macro Strategy and also Economics. The pdf should explain how to vote but in short voters should go to https://voting.institutionalinvestor.com/surveys. First time users will sign up with their professional email address using the link on the top right corner and an email will be sent to verify their email. New users can request a ballot after verifying their email address. After verifying their email, users already in the Institutional Investor database as an eligible voter will be able to see the survey. Very many thanks for all your support. Let me know if you’ve managed to vote or have difficulties.

Hopefully you’ll still vote if I tell you’ve I’ve no idea what’s happening in Treasuries at the moment. Is it the slightly weaker than expected data being extrapolated out, the delta variant, or is it technicals? Or is it a combination? Indeed the big story yesterday was the very surprisingly (to me anyway) strong rally in US bonds with 10yr yields down -7.6bps to 1.348% by the close. That left the 10yr yield at a 4-month low as both real rates (-6.4bps) and inflation expectations (-1.3bps) drove the decline, and also follows on from the 5 successive moves lower we saw last week. A turnaround in oil prices and a weaker than expected US ISM seemed to be the catalyst. There was a similar rally on this side of the Atlantic too, with yields on 10yr bunds (-5.8bps), OATs (-5.9bps) and BTPs (-6.1bps) all falling back. And finally, flatter yield curves were another big theme yesterday, with the 2s10s curves in both the US (-6.0bps) and the UK (-7.4bps) hitting 4-month lows of their own.

As all that was going on, it was another topsy-turvy day for oil, which as we discussed yesterday could equally likely react well or badly to the collapse of the OPEC+ meeting. It either means no supply increases in August (bullish) or lots of fresh supply (bearish) if countries eventually see the break up as a terminal blow to the alliances’ strict supply agreements. We drunk from both sides of the well yesterday with oil initially higher (Brent crude +0.9%, WTI +2.4%) in the morning London session, and WTI futures at their highest levels since November 2014, before collapsing into the NY open and eventually closing (Brent crude -3.41%, WTI -2.38%) just off their lows of the day. This was the biggest daily fall since mid-May for both Brent crude and WTI futures.

For equities the picture was more mixed, with the S&P 500 (-0.20%) falling back from its all-time high on Friday, however the intraday moves were somewhat worse with the S&P down as much as -0.87% at one point on the back of losses in cyclical industries. Energy companies led the declines as oil prices moved sharply lower, whilst other cyclical industries underperformed including financials, materials and industrials. Tech firms were a bright spot with the NASDAQ outperforming the S&P and finishing up +0.17%. Meanwhile US small caps were the true underperformer as the index fell -1.36%, which took their YTD performance (+15.17%) back under the S&P 500’s (+15.64%). For further perspective, the marginal S&P 500 loss was only the index’s first daily decline in the last 8 sessions and the S&P and NASDAQ have only recorded two daily declines since June 18. Over in Europe, the STOXX 600 (-0.52%), the DAX (-0.96%) and the CAC 40 (-0.91%) all witnessed even larger losses than the US.

The market had started to turn lower before the US services ISM, but a slightly weaker outcome than expected seemed to accelerate the move. It came in at a weaker-than-expected 60.1 (vs. 63.5 expected). In fact, the decline of -3.9pts on the previous month was actually the biggest monthly decline since the height of the pandemic last year, though the reading is still above its levels throughout all of 2019 and 2020, so this is hardly a move towards contraction. June’s reading is also still the 11th highest reading in the 24 year history of the series – the top three readings are March, April and May of this year. To be fair on the downside, the employment component did fall sharply to 49.3, marking the first time it’s been below 50 this year, but even there that was inconsistent with the +642k services jobs produced in June that we saw in Friday’s jobs report. So we might have to wait until next week to get a better picture, when some of the hard data for June comes out like industrial production and retail sales. The anecdotes within the report were still quite supportive with lots of quotes of how strong demand was being held back by supply issues and prices. So these reports are all very confusing at the moment.

Staying with macro/economic issues, yesterday we released the latest edition of The House View, which is an easy-to-read slide pack of all of Deutsche Bank’s macro and strategy views. Since the last edition in late May the global recovery has continued to motor along as expected, but the balance of risks have moved in a slightly more negative direction thanks to the delta variant and the FOMC reaction. You can read the report here.

Sentiment has failed to improve in Asia this morning with the Nikkei (-0.91%), Hang Seng (-0.74%) and Kospi (-0.63%) all taking a leg lower. In contrast the Shanghai Comp is up +0.44% alongside other Chinese bourses. Looking at sovereign bond yields, those on 10y USTs are up +1.2bps thereby offsetting a small part of yesterday’s decline but yields on Australian and New Zealand 10y bonds are down -8.8bps and -6.3bps respectively after being higher yesterday before the global yield falls. Futures on the S&P 500 (-0.02%) are broadly flat while those on Stoxx 50 are up +0.17%. Elsewhere oil prices are largely unchanged.

In terms of the latest on the pandemic, the number of UK Covid-19 cases hit its highest so far of the latest wave, at 28,773, which comes as the government remain on track to lift pretty much all the remaining restrictions in England on July 19. The new health secretary even warned that cases could jump to 100k per day as we open up over the summer. One bright spot however was that the weekly growth rate in cases fell once again, now standing at +49% above the previous week, which is down from the peak of +74% we saw last Friday. Elsewhere Germany is set to relax travel restrictions on those coming from the UK and Portugal among others as overall cases counts recede. Meanwhile in Australia, the city of Sydney has extended its lockdown which was due to end on Friday by one more week as it hasn’t yet brought the spread of the delta variant under control. South Korea has also said that it may raise its virus alert level if the latest surge isn’t contained in the next two or three days. The country has reported 1,212 new cases, the highest daily number in almost seven months. Sticking to Asia, Myanmar has reported 3,602 new infections in the past 24 hours, its highest single day increase since the pandemic began.

Looking at yesterday’s other data, German factory orders unexpectedly fell by -3.7% (vs. +0.9% expected), which in light of the upward revision to April’s reading marks the first decline of 2021 so far. The slump was driven by a decline in foreign orders (-6.7%), in contrast to domestic orders which were up +0.9%. We also had the latest ZEW survey, which saw the expectations measure decline to its lowest since January at 63.3 (vs. 75.2 expected). Finally, Euro Area retail sales grew by +4.6% in May (vs. +4.3% expected).

To the day ahead now, and the highlight will likely be the release of the FOMC minutes from the June meeting, whilst the main data highlight is the US job openings data for May. Otherwise from Europe we’ll get German industrial production and Italian retail sales for May, and the European Commission will be publishing their latest economic forecasts. Finally, the Fed’s Bostic will be speaking.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 08:04

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VbNWC1 Tyler Durden

Social Media Platforms and the Dangers of Censorship Creep

Another excerpt from my Social Media as Common Carriers? article (see also this thread):

[* * *]

Now at this point Facebook’s and Twitter’s influence on political life has been relatively modest. They haven’t, for instance, visibly tried to deploy their power in a way to block legislation that would specifically harm their business interests. Nor have they, to my knowledge, blocked major candidates’ speech during an actual campaign. (The deplatforming of President Trump happened two months after the election.)

At the same time, they have certainly been willing to restrict opinion that are well within the American political mainstream. Twitter, for instance, famously blocked a New York Post story based on the material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, on the theory that it involved sharing of “hacked materials,” though that hacked material policy has since been changed.[51] Yet newspapers have long published stories based on likely illegally leaked material—consider the Pentagon Papers—and publishing a story about material taken from a laptop that had allegedly been abandoned at a repair shop isn’t substantially different.

Facebook blocked another New York Post story, posted in February 2020, about COVID possibly leaking from a Chinese virology lab.[52] While it’s not clear whether that allegation is correct, it’s far from clear that it’s incorrect, either, as many have recently acknowledged.[53]

Facebook blocked yet another Post story, about expensive real estate bought by a Black Lives Matter cofounder, on the grounds that the story allegedly revealing personal information.[54] But the story didn’t give the addresses of the houses, though it included photos; the information was apparently drawn from public records. Stories about house purchases by prominent people are routine in mainstream media.[55]

Newt Gingrich was apparently suspended from Twitter for “hateful conduct,” for a Tweet saying that “The greatest threat of a covid surge comes from Biden’s untested illegal immigrants pouring across the border. We have no way of knowing how many of them are bringing covid with them.”[56] While such a threat may be overstated, it seems quite plausible: Many Latin American countries, including Mexico, have very high COVID rates, and of course international travel is indeed a potential vector of disease transmission.

YouTube deleted a video in which Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and a panel of scientists were discussing COVID, because it “contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19″—the scientists apparently stated that children should not wear masks, and the CDC calls for children age 2 and above to wear masks.[57] But as recently as August 2020 the World Health Organization took a different view for 2-to-5-year-olds (which it said shouldn’t wear masks) and perhaps 6-to-11-year-olds (for which it said the decision should turn on various contextual factors).[58]

To be sure, even businesses’ suppression of “extremist” views, such as those of Louis Farrakhan or Milo Yiannopoulos,[59] or of Naomi Wolf’s claims that the COVID vaccines are a “software platform that can receive uploads,”[60] may undermine democracy.[61] But the actual impact of the platforms on political life is especially great if they choose to block material that is seriously being debated.

Consider, too, that the app for the conservative-focused Twitter competitor Parler was removed by Apple and Google from their app stores, and blocked by its hosting company, Amazon Web Services, because of concerns that some of Parler’s users were encouraging violence.[62] Parler was merely refusing to forbid certain speech, much of which is constitutionally protected—thus voluntarily acting in a way close to how the post office and phone companies are required by law to act.[63] Yet this now seems to be a basis for deplatforming.

And it seems likely that platforms will over time become even more willing to block material they disapprove of. Why wouldn’t platforms that get a taste for exercising such power (in a way that I’m sure they think has done good) be inclined to exercise it even more?[64] And if one day social media executives and other influential employees see some speech as not just ideologically offensive but highly economically threatening—for instance, urging regulations that they think would be devastating to their businesses—wouldn’t it be especially likely that they would try to tamp it down?[65] Shouldn’t we indeed worry “that tomorrow’s apex platforms under deregulatory conditions might adopt content regulation policies that are far more at odds with basic liberal norms than anything today’s Californian cohort have adopted so far”?[66]

Tech company managers are, after all, just people. Like people generally, they are capable of public-spiritedness, but also of narrow-mindedness and bias and self-interest.[67] Indeed, being people, they are capable of viewing their narrow-mindedness and bias and self-interest as public-spiritedness.[68]

But beyond this, there will likely be increasing public pressure to get Facebook, Twitter, and other companies to suppress other supposedly dangerous speech, such as fiery rhetoric against the police or oil companies or world trade authorities. People will demand: If you blocked A, why aren’t you blocking B? Aren’t you being hypocritical or discriminatory?

To offer just one example, consider this headline: “Facebook banned Holocaust denial from its platform in October. Anti-hate groups now want the social media giant to block posts denying the Armenian genocide.”[69] If that call is accepted, it seems likely that other groups will make similar calls, whether about the treatment of American Indians by the U.S. or other North or South American countries, treatment of the Uyghurs or Tibetans by China, or a wide range of other historical events. And since the Facebook policy bans “[d]enying or distorting information about the Holocaust,”[70] the scope of such potential restrictions could be quite broad and quite vague.

I’ve called this phenomenon “censorship envy.”[71] People may sometimes be willing to tolerate speech that they view as offensive and evil, if they perceive that it’s protected by a broadly accepted free speech norm. But once some viewpoints get suppressed, foes of other viewpoints are likely to wonder: Why not the viewpoints that we condemn as well?

No-one wants to feel like a chump who isn’t getting the moral victories that others are getting, and who has to suffer in silence while others get what they want. Plus trying to suppress speech that one sees as evil may seem like a virtuous cause to many people. Once that avenue for feeling good becomes available to some, others will likely want to use it, too.

And there is little reason to think that the platforms will enforce the rules in any generally politically neutral way, even setting aside the rules’ express viewpoint-based prohibitions (e.g., on supposedly hateful viewpoints). It’s only human nature for people to think the worst of their adversaries’ views—including by labeling them hate speech or fake news or incitement—while giving their allies the benefit of the doubt.

It’s likewise only human nature to view even factually defensible but incomplete positions as “distorting” history if they are inconsistent with one’s ideology, but as unavoidable simplifications or legitimate judgment calls if they fit one’s own views. Orson Welles, when he was married to Rita Hayworth, famously said, on hearing someone say Hayworth was sweating, “Horses sweat. People perspire. Miss Hayworth glows.”[72] So it goes with ideas we love and ideas we don’t.

We have also seen a different sort of censorship creep: from banning certain viewpoints on the platform (with perhaps a total ban on a speaker if the speaker violates the ban often enough), to banning speakers who express views off the platform, or even who belong to groups that hold such views. Amazon’s Twitch live-broadcasting service has recently banned users “even [for] actions [that] occur entirely off Twitch,” such as “membership in a known hate group.”[73] I doubt any of us would have predicted in 2016 that, in five years, social media platforms would start blacklisting users simply for belonging to an ideological group, even if the users say nothing on the platform endorsing that group. Yet this is happening now, and there’s little reason to think that the censorship creep has stopped.

Finally, sometimes just the risk of suspension may pressure politicians and other speakers to avoid taking positions a company dislikes, as Justice Stevens warned about in Citizens United.[74] To be sure, being banned by Twitter and Facebook might in some situations be good publicity, especially if one is trying to make a name for oneself: It’s still rare enough to be a news story. But often the ban would just seriously interfere with one’s ability to reach one’s constituents. Given how heavily politicians and advocacy groups rely on social media,[75] the threat of losing that outlet can be quite serious.

Similarly, in a media world where social media pass­-along is often key to a story’s success—and therefore to a journalist’s success[76]—knowing that a story is likely to be blocked by Twitter or Facebook might well steer the journalists away from the story. Perhaps we might like that, if we trust Twitter and Facebook to block only stories we think are “bad.” But just how much should we trust them?[77]

Likewise, Amazon Web Services’ banning Parler didn’t permanently destroy Parler; thanks to a billionaire supporter, Parler managed to get back online some weeks later.[78] But Amazon’s actions—and Google and Apple’s actions in banning Parler from its app store—sent a powerful message to other platforms, and other speakers: Better do what we say, unless you too have a billionaire on your side.

Note that none of these arguments requires a showing that the platforms’ blocking decisions disproportionately and substantially affect conservatives, or progressives, or any other large ideological group. The concern here isn’t about group rights or interests, under which the toleration of many conservative or progressive views justifies the exclusion of other such views.

The concern rather is about platforms’ leveraging their economic power into control over public debate; and that concern can exist regardless of whether the aggregate leverage has any particular ideological valence. We may rightly worry what would happen if phone companies could block phone service to disfavored groups, even if we can’t predict the ideological mix of the groups that would be blocked, and even if we expect that it will just nip off some ideological advocacy here and there rather than broadly damaging any particular major political movement. Likewise for social media platforms.

[51] Emma-Jo Morris & Gabrielle Fonrouge, Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad, N.Y. Post (Oct. 14 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌5TYC-S9WG; Steven Musil, Twitter Revises Policy on Posting Hacked Materials After Hunter Biden Story, Cnet (Oct. 16, 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌P25G-EAKP; Twitter, Distribution of Hacked Material Policy (Oct. 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌H6ML-8Z3L Consistently with the change, Twitter is now sometimes even promoting stories based on hacks. Luke Rosiak, Paper Uses ‘Breached’ Data to Dox Police Who Donated to Innocent Colleague Targeted by BLM; Twitter Promotes, Daily Wire (Apr 17, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌58JN-HCXE.

[52] Post Editorial Board, Opinion, Facebook’s COVID Coverup, N.Y. Post (Jan 5, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌P3MX-KRU6; Emily Jacobs, Twitter Won’t Confirm if Users Can Post About Lab Leak COVID Origin Theory, N.Y. Post (May 28, 2921), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌N3FK-ZSDF.

[53] E.g., Nicholson Baker, The Lab-Leak Hypothesis, N.Y. Mag.: Intelligencer (Jan 4, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌HM42-VERH; Statement on the Investigation Into the Origins of COVID-19, 2009 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. (May 26, 2021); Glen Kessler, Timeline: How the Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory Suddenly Became Credible, Wash. Post (May 25, 2021) (“In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored.”); Sohrab Ahmari, Facebook’s Lab-leak Censors Owe The Post, and America, an Apology, Wash. Post (May 27, 2021); Katherine Eban, The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins, Vanity Fair (June 3, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌5GPK-DMJL; Rowan Jacobson, How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media, Newsweek (June 2, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌EL34-9JMK.

[54] Post Editorial Board, Opinion, Social Media Again Silenced The Post for Reporting the News, N.Y. Post (Apr. 16, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌SPS3-9HYR.

[55] E.g., Mark David, Ben Affleck Snags Stately $19 Million Pacific Palisades Mansion, Variety (Apr. 12, 2018)‌; Builder Says Rush Bought His House, Tampa Bay Times (Sep. 15, 2005), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌JW2N-WVWA.

[56] Sarah Rumpf, Newt Gingrich Fires Back at Twitter After His Account Gets Suspended for ‘Hateful Conduct’, Mediaite (Mar. 5, 2021) https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌JST7-AE72.

[57] Corky Siemaszko, YouTube Pulls Florida Governor’s Video, Says His Panel Spread COVID-19 Misinformation, NBC News (Apr. 9, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌L6FD-5J5R.5

[58] Kelly Young, WHO Recommends Against Face Masks for Kids in Community Settings Under Age 5, NEJM J. Watch (Aug. 24, 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌L4SM-6B9P.

[59] Oliver Darcy, Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones and Other “Dangerous’ Voices Banned by Facebook and Instagram, CNN Business (May 3, 2019, 6:14 am), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌L6FD-5J5R.

[60] Joseph Guzman, Famous Feminist Naomi Wolf Banned From Twitter, The Hill: Changing America (June 7, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌TM8K-HCWJ.

[61] See also Natasha Lennard, Facebook’s Ban on Far-Left Pages Is an Extension of Trump Propaganda, Intercept (Aug. 20, 2020, 12:30 pm), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌LF6N-TYZB (arguing that Facebook was banning a wide variety of “anarchist[] and anti-fascist[]” groups).

[62] Alex Fitzpatrick, Why Amazon’s Move to Drop Parler Is a Big Deal for the Future of the Internet, Time (Jan. 21, 2021); Jay Peters, Google Pulls Parler from Play Store for Fostering Calls to Violence, Verge (Jan. 8, 2021, 7:57 pm), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌2GVY-N6PE; Shirin Ghaffary, Parler Is Back on Apple’s App Store, With a Promise to Crack Down on Hate Speech, Vox: Recode (May 17, 2021, 6:50 pm), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌94JU-263X (“Parler is back in Apple’s App Store, with a promise to crack down on hate speech”).

One reader suggested that Amazon Web Services may have been risking federal criminal liability for hosting incitement of violence by Parler users (which means Parler would have been, even more clearly). But I don’t think that’s so. Incitement liability turns on the defendant’s intent to produce a criminal act, Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 109 (1973); a hosting company would lack such an intent. The same is generally true of aiding and abetting. Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 76 (2014). And conspiracy generally requires both an intent to further the underlying crime and an agreement to commit it. United States v. Williams, 974 F.3d 320, 369–70 (3d Cir. 2020). Some specialized statutes, such as the ban on “knowingly provid[ing] material support or resources” (including “communications equipment”) “to a foreign terrorist organization,” 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1), don’t require such an intention; and indeed both platforms and hosting companies may be required to block accounts used by designated foreign terrorist organizations once they learn that those accounts are indeed so used. But that is a rare exception, and I know of no reason to think it was involved in Amazon Web Services’ deplatforming of Parler.

[63] Close, though not identical: Parler did apparently try to remove “threats of violence” and “illegal activity.” Jeff Horwitz & Keach Hagey, Mercer Cash Backs Upstart App Parler, Wall St. J., Nov. 16, 2020, at B1.

[64] See Stewart Baker, What I Learned When Linkedin Suppressed My Post, Volokh Conspiracy (Apr. 19, 2021, 5:30 pm), https://ift.tt/2V5vuuL.

[65] Cf. Langvardt, supra note 23, at 7 (discussing this possibility).

[66] Kyle Langvardt, Platform Speech Governance and the First Amendment: A User-Centered Approach, Digital Social Contract: A Lawfare Paper Series, Nov. 2020, https://ift.tt/3jQOnvL.

[67] Cf. Varadarajan, supra note 9 (“[Richard] Epstein describes Mr. Dorsey’s Jan. 13 Twitter thread, in which the CEO purports to explain the ban on Mr. Trump, as displaying ‘a rare combination of hubris and ignorance, proof of how dangerous it is to have a committed partisan as an ostensible umpire.'”).

[68] “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” Robert A. Heinlein, Gulf, in Assignment in Eternity 542 (1953).

[69] Isabella Jibilian, Facebook Banned Holocaust Denial from Its Platform in October. Anti-Hate Groups Now Want the Social Media Giant to Block Posts Denying the Armenian Genocide, Business Insider (Dec. 31, 2020, 10:24 am), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌9KRV-83X4.

[70] Facebook, Community Standards: Hate Speech, (2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌9UJU-2BDD.

[71] Alex Kozinski & Eugene Volokh, A Penumbra Too Far, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1639, 1656 n.88 (1993); Eugene Volokh, The U.S. Constitution Says We All Have To Live with Being Offended, L.A. Times, July 18, 2001, §2, at 13.

[72] Judith Martin, Forgo, Young Lovers, Wherever You Are, Wash. Post (May 21, 1978).

[73] Twitch, Our Plans for Addressing Sever Off-Service Misconduct (Apr. 7, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌J38R-V4WZ.

[74] See supra Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 471 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

[75] How Social Media Is Shaping Political Campaigns, Knowledge@Wharton (Aug. 17, 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌938K-A93H.

[76] See, e.g., Archie Bland, Daily Telegraph Plans to Link Journalists’ Pay with Article Popularity, Daily Telegraph (UK), Mar. 15, 2021.

[77] See Kyle Langvardt, Regulating Online Content Moderation, 106 Geo. L.J. 1353, 1388 (2018) (“If you are comfortable with this approach, and you have faith that the well-meaning, blandly progressive oligopolists of the West Coast can secure the future of online free speech, ask yourself how you might feel if they were owned by someone with a different political or cultural baseline—the Walton family, or the Koch brothers, or the Breitbart-affiliated hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer. And whoever is at the helm, how much faith do you have in the major online platforms to protect robust speech rights online during the next major national security crisis?”).

[78] See Rachel Lerman, Parler Is Back Online, More Than a Month After Tangle with Amazon Knocked It Offline, Wash. Post, Feb. 15, 2021.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ABBcVD
via IFTTT

Social Media Platforms and the Dangers of Censorship Creep

Another excerpt from my Social Media as Common Carriers? article (see also this thread):

[* * *]

Now at this point Facebook’s and Twitter’s influence on political life has been relatively modest. They haven’t, for instance, visibly tried to deploy their power in a way to block legislation that would specifically harm their business interests. Nor have they, to my knowledge, blocked major candidates’ speech during an actual campaign. (The deplatforming of President Trump happened two months after the election.)

At the same time, they have certainly been willing to restrict opinion that are well within the American political mainstream. Twitter, for instance, famously blocked a New York Post story based on the material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, on the theory that it involved sharing of “hacked materials,” though that hacked material policy has since been changed.[51] Yet newspapers have long published stories based on likely illegally leaked material—consider the Pentagon Papers—and publishing a story about material taken from a laptop that had allegedly been abandoned at a repair shop isn’t substantially different.

Facebook blocked another New York Post story, posted in February 2020, about COVID possibly leaking from a Chinese virology lab.[52] While it’s not clear whether that allegation is correct, it’s far from clear that it’s incorrect, either, as many have recently acknowledged.[53]

Facebook blocked yet another Post story, about expensive real estate bought by a Black Lives Matter cofounder, on the grounds that the story allegedly revealing personal information.[54] But the story didn’t give the addresses of the houses, though it included photos; the information was apparently drawn from public records. Stories about house purchases by prominent people are routine in mainstream media.[55]

Newt Gingrich was apparently suspended from Twitter for “hateful conduct,” for a Tweet saying that “The greatest threat of a covid surge comes from Biden’s untested illegal immigrants pouring across the border. We have no way of knowing how many of them are bringing covid with them.”[56] While such a threat may be overstated, it seems quite plausible: Many Latin American countries, including Mexico, have very high COVID rates, and of course international travel is indeed a potential vector of disease transmission.

YouTube deleted a video in which Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and a panel of scientists were discussing COVID, because it “contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19″—the scientists apparently stated that children should not wear masks, and the CDC calls for children age 2 and above to wear masks.[57] But as recently as August 2020 the World Health Organization took a different view for 2-to-5-year-olds (which it said shouldn’t wear masks) and perhaps 6-to-11-year-olds (for which it said the decision should turn on various contextual factors).[58]

To be sure, even businesses’ suppression of “extremist” views, such as those of Louis Farrakhan or Milo Yiannopoulos,[59] or of Naomi Wolf’s claims that the COVID vaccines are a “software platform that can receive uploads,”[60] may undermine democracy.[61] But the actual impact of the platforms on political life is especially great if they choose to block material that is seriously being debated.

Consider, too, that the app for the conservative-focused Twitter competitor Parler was removed by Apple and Google from their app stores, and blocked by its hosting company, Amazon Web Services, because of concerns that some of Parler’s users were encouraging violence.[62] Parler was merely refusing to forbid certain speech, much of which is constitutionally protected—thus voluntarily acting in a way close to how the post office and phone companies are required by law to act.[63] Yet this now seems to be a basis for deplatforming.

And it seems likely that platforms will over time become even more willing to block material they disapprove of. Why wouldn’t platforms that get a taste for exercising such power (in a way that I’m sure they think has done good) be inclined to exercise it even more?[64] And if one day social media executives and other influential employees see some speech as not just ideologically offensive but highly economically threatening—for instance, urging regulations that they think would be devastating to their businesses—wouldn’t it be especially likely that they would try to tamp it down?[65] Shouldn’t we indeed worry “that tomorrow’s apex platforms under deregulatory conditions might adopt content regulation policies that are far more at odds with basic liberal norms than anything today’s Californian cohort have adopted so far”?[66]

Tech company managers are, after all, just people. Like people generally, they are capable of public-spiritedness, but also of narrow-mindedness and bias and self-interest.[67] Indeed, being people, they are capable of viewing their narrow-mindedness and bias and self-interest as public-spiritedness.[68]

But beyond this, there will likely be increasing public pressure to get Facebook, Twitter, and other companies to suppress other supposedly dangerous speech, such as fiery rhetoric against the police or oil companies or world trade authorities. People will demand: If you blocked A, why aren’t you blocking B? Aren’t you being hypocritical or discriminatory?

To offer just one example, consider this headline: “Facebook banned Holocaust denial from its platform in October. Anti-hate groups now want the social media giant to block posts denying the Armenian genocide.”[69] If that call is accepted, it seems likely that other groups will make similar calls, whether about the treatment of American Indians by the U.S. or other North or South American countries, treatment of the Uyghurs or Tibetans by China, or a wide range of other historical events. And since the Facebook policy bans “[d]enying or distorting information about the Holocaust,”[70] the scope of such potential restrictions could be quite broad and quite vague.

I’ve called this phenomenon “censorship envy.”[71] People may sometimes be willing to tolerate speech that they view as offensive and evil, if they perceive that it’s protected by a broadly accepted free speech norm. But once some viewpoints get suppressed, foes of other viewpoints are likely to wonder: Why not the viewpoints that we condemn as well?

No-one wants to feel like a chump who isn’t getting the moral victories that others are getting, and who has to suffer in silence while others get what they want. Plus trying to suppress speech that one sees as evil may seem like a virtuous cause to many people. Once that avenue for feeling good becomes available to some, others will likely want to use it, too.

And there is little reason to think that the platforms will enforce the rules in any generally politically neutral way, even setting aside the rules’ express viewpoint-based prohibitions (e.g., on supposedly hateful viewpoints). It’s only human nature for people to think the worst of their adversaries’ views—including by labeling them hate speech or fake news or incitement—while giving their allies the benefit of the doubt.

It’s likewise only human nature to view even factually defensible but incomplete positions as “distorting” history if they are inconsistent with one’s ideology, but as unavoidable simplifications or legitimate judgment calls if they fit one’s own views. Orson Welles, when he was married to Rita Hayworth, famously said, on hearing someone say Hayworth was sweating, “Horses sweat. People perspire. Miss Hayworth glows.”[72] So it goes with ideas we love and ideas we don’t.

We have also seen a different sort of censorship creep: from banning certain viewpoints on the platform (with perhaps a total ban on a speaker if the speaker violates the ban often enough), to banning speakers who express views off the platform, or even who belong to groups that hold such views. Amazon’s Twitch live-broadcasting service has recently banned users “even [for] actions [that] occur entirely off Twitch,” such as “membership in a known hate group.”[73] I doubt any of us would have predicted in 2016 that, in five years, social media platforms would start blacklisting users simply for belonging to an ideological group, even if the users say nothing on the platform endorsing that group. Yet this is happening now, and there’s little reason to think that the censorship creep has stopped.

Finally, sometimes just the risk of suspension may pressure politicians and other speakers to avoid taking positions a company dislikes, as Justice Stevens warned about in Citizens United.[74] To be sure, being banned by Twitter and Facebook might in some situations be good publicity, especially if one is trying to make a name for oneself: It’s still rare enough to be a news story. But often the ban would just seriously interfere with one’s ability to reach one’s constituents. Given how heavily politicians and advocacy groups rely on social media,[75] the threat of losing that outlet can be quite serious.

Similarly, in a media world where social media pass­-along is often key to a story’s success—and therefore to a journalist’s success[76]—knowing that a story is likely to be blocked by Twitter or Facebook might well steer the journalists away from the story. Perhaps we might like that, if we trust Twitter and Facebook to block only stories we think are “bad.” But just how much should we trust them?[77]

Likewise, Amazon Web Services’ banning Parler didn’t permanently destroy Parler; thanks to a billionaire supporter, Parler managed to get back online some weeks later.[78] But Amazon’s actions—and Google and Apple’s actions in banning Parler from its app store—sent a powerful message to other platforms, and other speakers: Better do what we say, unless you too have a billionaire on your side.

Note that none of these arguments requires a showing that the platforms’ blocking decisions disproportionately and substantially affect conservatives, or progressives, or any other large ideological group. The concern here isn’t about group rights or interests, under which the toleration of many conservative or progressive views justifies the exclusion of other such views.

The concern rather is about platforms’ leveraging their economic power into control over public debate; and that concern can exist regardless of whether the aggregate leverage has any particular ideological valence. We may rightly worry what would happen if phone companies could block phone service to disfavored groups, even if we can’t predict the ideological mix of the groups that would be blocked, and even if we expect that it will just nip off some ideological advocacy here and there rather than broadly damaging any particular major political movement. Likewise for social media platforms.

[51] Emma-Jo Morris & Gabrielle Fonrouge, Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad, N.Y. Post (Oct. 14 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌5TYC-S9WG; Steven Musil, Twitter Revises Policy on Posting Hacked Materials After Hunter Biden Story, Cnet (Oct. 16, 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌P25G-EAKP; Twitter, Distribution of Hacked Material Policy (Oct. 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌H6ML-8Z3L Consistently with the change, Twitter is now sometimes even promoting stories based on hacks. Luke Rosiak, Paper Uses ‘Breached’ Data to Dox Police Who Donated to Innocent Colleague Targeted by BLM; Twitter Promotes, Daily Wire (Apr 17, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌58JN-HCXE.

[52] Post Editorial Board, Opinion, Facebook’s COVID Coverup, N.Y. Post (Jan 5, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌P3MX-KRU6; Emily Jacobs, Twitter Won’t Confirm if Users Can Post About Lab Leak COVID Origin Theory, N.Y. Post (May 28, 2921), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌N3FK-ZSDF.

[53] E.g., Nicholson Baker, The Lab-Leak Hypothesis, N.Y. Mag.: Intelligencer (Jan 4, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌HM42-VERH; Statement on the Investigation Into the Origins of COVID-19, 2009 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. (May 26, 2021); Glen Kessler, Timeline: How the Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory Suddenly Became Credible, Wash. Post (May 25, 2021) (“In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored.”); Sohrab Ahmari, Facebook’s Lab-leak Censors Owe The Post, and America, an Apology, Wash. Post (May 27, 2021); Katherine Eban, The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins, Vanity Fair (June 3, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌5GPK-DMJL; Rowan Jacobson, How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media, Newsweek (June 2, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌EL34-9JMK.

[54] Post Editorial Board, Opinion, Social Media Again Silenced The Post for Reporting the News, N.Y. Post (Apr. 16, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌SPS3-9HYR.

[55] E.g., Mark David, Ben Affleck Snags Stately $19 Million Pacific Palisades Mansion, Variety (Apr. 12, 2018)‌; Builder Says Rush Bought His House, Tampa Bay Times (Sep. 15, 2005), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌JW2N-WVWA.

[56] Sarah Rumpf, Newt Gingrich Fires Back at Twitter After His Account Gets Suspended for ‘Hateful Conduct’, Mediaite (Mar. 5, 2021) https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌JST7-AE72.

[57] Corky Siemaszko, YouTube Pulls Florida Governor’s Video, Says His Panel Spread COVID-19 Misinformation, NBC News (Apr. 9, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌L6FD-5J5R.5

[58] Kelly Young, WHO Recommends Against Face Masks for Kids in Community Settings Under Age 5, NEJM J. Watch (Aug. 24, 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌L4SM-6B9P.

[59] Oliver Darcy, Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones and Other “Dangerous’ Voices Banned by Facebook and Instagram, CNN Business (May 3, 2019, 6:14 am), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌L6FD-5J5R.

[60] Joseph Guzman, Famous Feminist Naomi Wolf Banned From Twitter, The Hill: Changing America (June 7, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌TM8K-HCWJ.

[61] See also Natasha Lennard, Facebook’s Ban on Far-Left Pages Is an Extension of Trump Propaganda, Intercept (Aug. 20, 2020, 12:30 pm), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌LF6N-TYZB (arguing that Facebook was banning a wide variety of “anarchist[] and anti-fascist[]” groups).

[62] Alex Fitzpatrick, Why Amazon’s Move to Drop Parler Is a Big Deal for the Future of the Internet, Time (Jan. 21, 2021); Jay Peters, Google Pulls Parler from Play Store for Fostering Calls to Violence, Verge (Jan. 8, 2021, 7:57 pm), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌2GVY-N6PE; Shirin Ghaffary, Parler Is Back on Apple’s App Store, With a Promise to Crack Down on Hate Speech, Vox: Recode (May 17, 2021, 6:50 pm), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌94JU-263X (“Parler is back in Apple’s App Store, with a promise to crack down on hate speech”).

One reader suggested that Amazon Web Services may have been risking federal criminal liability for hosting incitement of violence by Parler users (which means Parler would have been, even more clearly). But I don’t think that’s so. Incitement liability turns on the defendant’s intent to produce a criminal act, Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 109 (1973); a hosting company would lack such an intent. The same is generally true of aiding and abetting. Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 76 (2014). And conspiracy generally requires both an intent to further the underlying crime and an agreement to commit it. United States v. Williams, 974 F.3d 320, 369–70 (3d Cir. 2020). Some specialized statutes, such as the ban on “knowingly provid[ing] material support or resources” (including “communications equipment”) “to a foreign terrorist organization,” 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1), don’t require such an intention; and indeed both platforms and hosting companies may be required to block accounts used by designated foreign terrorist organizations once they learn that those accounts are indeed so used. But that is a rare exception, and I know of no reason to think it was involved in Amazon Web Services’ deplatforming of Parler.

[63] Close, though not identical: Parler did apparently try to remove “threats of violence” and “illegal activity.” Jeff Horwitz & Keach Hagey, Mercer Cash Backs Upstart App Parler, Wall St. J., Nov. 16, 2020, at B1.

[64] See Stewart Baker, What I Learned When Linkedin Suppressed My Post, Volokh Conspiracy (Apr. 19, 2021, 5:30 pm), https://ift.tt/2V5vuuL.

[65] Cf. Langvardt, supra note 23, at 7 (discussing this possibility).

[66] Kyle Langvardt, Platform Speech Governance and the First Amendment: A User-Centered Approach, Digital Social Contract: A Lawfare Paper Series, Nov. 2020, https://ift.tt/3jQOnvL.

[67] Cf. Varadarajan, supra note 9 (“[Richard] Epstein describes Mr. Dorsey’s Jan. 13 Twitter thread, in which the CEO purports to explain the ban on Mr. Trump, as displaying ‘a rare combination of hubris and ignorance, proof of how dangerous it is to have a committed partisan as an ostensible umpire.'”).

[68] “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” Robert A. Heinlein, Gulf, in Assignment in Eternity 542 (1953).

[69] Isabella Jibilian, Facebook Banned Holocaust Denial from Its Platform in October. Anti-Hate Groups Now Want the Social Media Giant to Block Posts Denying the Armenian Genocide, Business Insider (Dec. 31, 2020, 10:24 am), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌9KRV-83X4.

[70] Facebook, Community Standards: Hate Speech, (2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌9UJU-2BDD.

[71] Alex Kozinski & Eugene Volokh, A Penumbra Too Far, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1639, 1656 n.88 (1993); Eugene Volokh, The U.S. Constitution Says We All Have To Live with Being Offended, L.A. Times, July 18, 2001, §2, at 13.

[72] Judith Martin, Forgo, Young Lovers, Wherever You Are, Wash. Post (May 21, 1978).

[73] Twitch, Our Plans for Addressing Sever Off-Service Misconduct (Apr. 7, 2021), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌J38R-V4WZ.

[74] See supra Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 471 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

[75] How Social Media Is Shaping Political Campaigns, Knowledge@Wharton (Aug. 17, 2020), https:‌//‌perma.cc/‌938K-A93H.

[76] See, e.g., Archie Bland, Daily Telegraph Plans to Link Journalists’ Pay with Article Popularity, Daily Telegraph (UK), Mar. 15, 2021.

[77] See Kyle Langvardt, Regulating Online Content Moderation, 106 Geo. L.J. 1353, 1388 (2018) (“If you are comfortable with this approach, and you have faith that the well-meaning, blandly progressive oligopolists of the West Coast can secure the future of online free speech, ask yourself how you might feel if they were owned by someone with a different political or cultural baseline—the Walton family, or the Koch brothers, or the Breitbart-affiliated hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer. And whoever is at the helm, how much faith do you have in the major online platforms to protect robust speech rights online during the next major national security crisis?”).

[78] See Rachel Lerman, Parler Is Back Online, More Than a Month After Tangle with Amazon Knocked It Offline, Wash. Post, Feb. 15, 2021.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ABBcVD
via IFTTT

Ever Given Container Ship Set Free After Owners Pay Fines

Ever Given Container Ship Set Free After Owners Pay Fines

The 1300-foot Ever Given container ship is currently underway, traversing the northern section of the Suez Canal, after spending months in the Great Bitter Lake as owners and insurers and Suez Canal Authority (SCA) officials hammered out a compensation deal for the vessel’s canal disruption in late March. 

We reported Tuesday that owners and insurers and SCA authorities reached a deal after last month’s “agreement in principle” following the container ship’s six-day blockage of the canal. WSJ reports the agreement was signed at SCA’s headquarters in Ismailia early Wednesday, allowing the vessel to continue its journey. 

Refinitiv marine traffic shows Ever Given has exited Great Bitter Lake moments ago and is moving north at 9.20 knots in the last stretch of the northern part of the canal. 

After the vessel was dislodged in late March, SCA initially demanded nearly $1 billion from the ship’s Japanese owners for lost revenue and the cost of salvaging it. But the amount was later publicly lowered to $550 million. According to WSJ sources, in a preliminary deal last month, owners and insurers of the Ever Given and the SCA called for approximately $200 million in compensation. 

Still, there are no exact details about the settlement figures. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/07/2021 – 07:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jPesLV Tyler Durden