Twitter, founded in 2006 by Jack Dorsey to be a simple social media platform that was no different than text messaging. In the past decade Twitter has evolved in two ways; one way, the platform took off and is much more complex with a few make overs here and there. The other way is, political correctness and censorship, which can be the same thing at times.
Twitter once had a bright prosperous future ahead of them, users growing and flurrying with innovation, and then in November 2013 Twitter went public. If you pay attention to the markets, and to Twitter's stock, you'd see it's been a big bust. Since 2013, the stock barely gained and commonly, more recently, loses. Why is that? It appears Twitter peaked quicker than anyone would have thought, there was only so much that could be done with Twitter that too much was getting done to upgrade it, when there wasn't a demand for that. Twitter also jumped into the realm of political correctness and social justice, which hasn't been helping their brand at all, now it gets cheers from the left and real victims of cyber bullying, but that does not represent the platform of Twitter. The censorship game all started when Twitter started suspending conservative accounts in July 2016, with the biggest one being @Nero owned by Milo Yiannopoulos for insulting SNL's Leslie Jones for her Ghostbusters role. Whatever happened to using Twitter's own blocking and muting functions? If someone is insulting you or bullying you via Twitter, block or mute them, they go away. It's clear Leslie's ego was bigger, which is way her and Jack Dorsey talked personally and had Milo banned from Twitter for life. Read the full story from Breitbart, click the red B.
More recently, the infamous "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli was suspended earlier this month for "harassment". Read more about that from CBS News . Again, why can't anyone use the block or mute functions, specifically designed to give the user power on who can talk to them. Twitter was created so everyone can come on and share what they are doing, thinking, whatever they want to post, but the recent political climate has changed all that big time.
Today, according to the Daily Caller, Twitter announced they are developing tools to prevent users from saying "hateful" things on Twitter. Is that ridiculous or what? Twitter is purely restricting speech, and spitting on the 1st Amendment, sadly Twitter doesn't have to follow the 1st Amendment because businesses can create their own policies. It's just very sad, Twitter is doing this, and one couldn't even guess how it'll benefit their bottom line and their stock value. Rumors have been floating around that Twitter may be bought, and with they way the company is going that may be truth in the near future. According to Fortune companies like Google, Disney, and Salesforce could be the ones to purchase the platform. Just two weeks ago Twitter sold their developing platform Fabric to Google, per Business Insider. That transaction could be the signal to something, but with Google buying it, don't expect censorship and political correctness to go away. It seems as if Jack Dorsey really doesn't care for his company, but for the cause he's fighting for using his social media platform as a tool. In 2016 a number of top executives fled the company and that signals a problem within a company. Per Recode, here is a list of those who left Twitter in 2016:
Notice the amount of Vice Presidents who left. That triggers the alarms for investors and even consumers, but more so investors because they have money invested within the company. Again, Jack Dorsey seems not to care about Twitter's shareholders or stakeholders for that matter, but only cares about his social justice cause. It's reflected from many conservative accounts being purged, political incorrect accounts being purged, and the company developing ways to censor tweets.
If you check Twitter's settings, go to "Privacy and content", you'll see "Show me sensitive media" which is a setting where you can either see or not see photos or video that may be sensitive according to Twitter. If you go to the "Notifications" settings, you'll find "Quality Filter" and "Muted words". The "Quality Filter" is supposed to improve the quality of Tweets you see. The "Muted words" setting is literally designed for a user to type in any word(s), and any tweet that contain that word, or words, will not appear on your timeline. Apparently Twitter isn't stopping there, as stated above from the Daily Caller article, Twitter is taking steps to prevent tweets from being posted all together. That is some serious 1984 Orwellian stuff right there. One a quick note, Facebook is working with China on censorship, and have been caught censoring conservative news on their platform. It's just sad, a social media network that had such potential and looked very promising is now failing. They're failing due to internal incompetence and censorship, Jack Dorsey let political correctness sway the way Twitter does business. TWTR will lose more than it gains, and soon Twitter will be bought by a company, and only God knows where Twitter will go from there. If the buyers are smart, they'll bring Twitter back to its roots, and promote freedom of speech for all and forever. Here is Milo Yiannopoulos giving Twitter a funeral (Start video at 30 minutes in):
1 Comment
Snapchat, the once small photo sharing app now one of the most used social media platforms on the planet. Released in 2011 it was a simple concept, a photo sharing app that deletes the pictures after a limited amount of time. Snapchat now is much more than that, and they're parent company Snap announced, per Business Insider, that they'll be going public. Snap will be listed on NYSE and may value at $25 billion.
Starting as a class project created by Evan Spiegel (Snap Inc. CEO), Bobby Murphy, and Reggie Brown they turned it into a now multi-billion dollar company. Snapchat started as a picture sharing app where the photos vanished after a certain time limit, it evolved into video and chat, accompanied by filters and geotags, and has now blossomed into a full out social network. According to Statista, as of June 2016, Snapchat had 150 million active daily users around the globe. One can assume that number has only grown since June of 2016, lets just guess 200 million users as of January 2017. Snapchat's users grow as the company grows, and the company has plenty of growling left to do. Last year, Snap released Spectacles, which are camera glasses for Snapchat. These glasses have two camera's and are connected to your Snapchat account, what you see is what you post. Spectacles give you a glimpse as to where Snap wants to go next, being a camera company. Where can you get Spectacles? Snap will likely sell them all across the country, but for now they can only be found in California, Oklahoma, and New York. Spectacles have to be bought from a vending machine called a "Bot", and run for about $130. Here's a quick video from Mashable on Spectacles:
The rate at which Snap is expanding, both as a company and in users, going public is a no-brainer. It also should make investors licking at their chops, because like stated above, at the rate this company is expanding, Snap has yet to peak. The better days lie ahead for Snap, and one could make the case they'll survive post IPO easier than they could argue against it.
Snapchat added "Discover" to their Snap Story section the Snapchat, where companies and Snapchat could post their own "stories" so people could "discover" them. This was brilliant both on Snapchat and the participating companies parts, because this opened the door to Snapchat for more users, money from the companies, and eventually advertising. Yes advertising, which really is the main reason why companies have a "discover" story on Snapchat. Not too long ago, Snapchat started running ads on not just "Discover" stories, but in between the Snapchat stories of your contacts; yes the golden ticket to revenue in the digital world, advertising. Snapchat users, keep snapping and enjoying what Snap puts out. Snapchat just recently had an update which changed the user interface up a bit, and gives it a somewhat different theme, but still with the same Snaphchat feel to it. Snap even added a search function to Snapchat now and not just for contact searches, the search bar is literally on your camera screen. Investors should be very excited and optimistic for this IPO. Snapchat has evolved significantly over the past 5 years and it's showing no sign of slowing up. Snapchat will only grow larger and could evolve into a much more complex social media platform than it is now. Spectacles will only grow in supply, be made more available, advertised, and increase in demand by the public. Snap will evolve into something much bigger than it is today, and back in February of 2015, Steve Tobak of Fox Business called it. Read that article.
Yahoo! The once great Internet search engine is now facing SEC investigation due to it's massive data breach that compromised over a billion Yahoo! accounts. The SEC is the Security Exchange Commission, which regulates the financial securities industry, stocks, and organizations such as Yahoo!. The SEC requires companies to disclose cybersecurity risks as soon as they're found out, and it appears Yahoo! failed to do this. This is all per, Fox Business.
In 2014 Yahoo! was hacked which compromised millions of accounts, but failed to disclose the hack until 2016 which Yahoo! then also discovered, that in 2013 another hack happened bringing the total number of compromised accounts to about a billion. Yahoo! clearly violated the SEC policy, and could face federal charges. By doing this, Yahoo! did not let their stake and shareholders know about the hacks which is very unethical, and may have harmed user's information and investors money. The SEC has not filed any charges yet, and it isn't clear if they will at all, but it sure shows some shady business going on at Yahoo!. This has some people saying Yahoo! took so long to disclose the breaches due to the pending Verizon-Yahoo! deal, which is terrible to all employees in both companies, as well as the investors. Very unethical. Here is a video from Bloomberg explaining the situation:
According to CNBC, the Verizon-Yahoo! deal is still on for the time being, but with all stuff happening at Yahoo! it's looking very unattractive. Really what it boils down to, does Verizon need Yahoo! that bad?
If Verizon goes through with the deal, the thinking behind it may be, Verizon will put all this in the rearview mirror, and get what they wanted out of Yahoo! in the first place, digital advertising. If you want to make a pretty penny on the Internet, focus on selling ads and ad space. Sure, Verizon wants content and resources Yahoo! has, but it's really all about them ad dollars. It's almost under the same guise of when Verizon scooped up AOL for $4.4 billion. Like stated above, ads are the name of the game when it comes to making money on the Internet. Before the SEC probe, but with both hacks disclosed and the questions already raised, surprisingly Yahoo! finished Q4 okay. According to Fox Business, Yahoo!'s financial performance improved a bit, but also reflects the of the company and it's future. The article pointed to cost cutting that helped Yahoo! out somewhat in the past year. Yahoo!'s CEO Marissa Mayer has planned to step down from Yahoo!'s board if Verizon still buys Yahoo!. Once the deal is closed and approved, Mayer will then rename Yahoo! to Altaba. This whole thing is just a big blow to stake and shareholders of Yahoo!. It shows real unethical practices going on within Yahoo!, and plain incompetence of executives. Yahoo! clearly violated the SEC policy of immediately disclosing a cybersecurity issue by taking two years to disclose it, and then slyly disclosed an additional breach in 2013. Information was compromised, and money could very well have been affected for all parties involved with Yahoo! and even Verizon. On one hand Verizon should not go on with this deal, let Yahoo! die a slow death and get acquired by someone like Google. If it's true that all Verizon really wants is digital advertising, it wouldn't take long to find a replacement deal, maybe Twitter? On the other hand Verizon should accept the deal with Yahoo! and save a dying company. Verizon could renegotiate the price of the deal, save money, and get what they wanted out of the deal. Verizon could sweep the dust under the rug, and start fresh with what would then be Altaba. Yes, Altaba, weird. Per Google, here are the 1 month stocks for both Yahoo! and Verizon (Click for larger images):
President Trump appointed FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai as the new Chairman of the FCC. Ajit Pai, a republican, was appointed by Barack Obama to serve as a commissioner for the FCC. Trump was quick to get to work and he wasted no time appointing new leadership for America's communications regulator after former chairman Tom Wheeler stepped down. This is all per The Hill.
Ajit Pai has made headlines strongly opposing net neutrality, and really being the anti-regulatory voice in FCC. Pai has strongly apposed previous FCC head Tom Wheeler's moves, but there really could be no better appointee than Pai for this position. Given Pai has already served as commissioner, and according to Forbes, Pai served some years in the Office of the General Counsel of the FCC and extensive knowledge of communications law. Pai was a senior attorney at a law firm that served a major telecommunications company. Pai will be in charge of the nation's regulatory body of all telecommunications. If you know what Pai is about, it's easy to guess where he could take the Commission, and one could assume it'll be deregulation. Like stated above, Pai has been a real voice for the regulations pushed by the Obama administration that put major restrictions on the telecommunications industry as a whole. Here is a brief video summary of Pai's view and plans per Wochit News:
You'd think with Republicans controlling The House, The Senate, and The White House, Pai will have no issue doing what he wants to do, well that is true, but there is one thing. The AT&T-Time Warner merger, the $85 billion deal that has President Trump shaking his head on. That is the one thorn in the side Pai will have, is Trump's disapproval of the merger. Trump stated back in October, he thinks it puts too much power "in the hands of too few".
Trump obviously does not seem to be a fan of consolidation, which sadly is the trend in the telecommunications and media industries, but Pai doesn't oppose it. In the next four years look for a lot of meetings between President Trump and Chairman Pai, especially when a merger or acquisition comes up within the industry. It's safe to say Pai will push free market policies and deregulate the telecom and media industries. That overall vision aligns with Trump's pro-growth, pro-American vision. Expect to see more jobs, innovation, and market growth within telecommunications and media over the next four years. Again, Pai and Trump will spar over mergers and acquisitions as both have good and fair arguments; Pai wants a free market approach as Trump wants a competitive approach. Consolidation is good in some instances, if it benefits the consumer and the market place, but too much could create an oligopoly which is not good. Investors should keep a close eye on stocks in the telecom and media industries over the next four years, also keep and eye on those ETFs as well. With Trump promoting pro-growth policies across the board, and Ajit Pai now the Chariman of the FCC, this sector could take off. Consumers and investors alike should all be excited for this new era in America, and once Pai gets to deregulating and promoting growth, industries will pick up steam and really take off. Technology overall, which a lot has to be approved by the FCC, has been over flowing with innovation and growth, but regulations have slowed that growth, and has kept a beast in it's cage long enough. Chairman Pai and President Trump will unleash the full potential of the telecommunications and media industries.
In 1969 the US Depertment of Defense Defense/Advance Research Project Agency created what would become the Internet we all love and know today, it was called ARPANET. Created to keep ongoing government communication after a catastrophic nuclear attack knocking out all land based telecommunications, ARPANET was a major milestone in not only the military, but technology in general. Little did its creators know what it would eventually turn into.
Using this technology, and creating new tech along the way, the Internet became fully commercialized in the US by 1995. Before then the US government had a strong grasp on the Internet, but in the present day the Internet is as we know, open and free. Anyone who has connection to this beautiful technology can do whatever they please, legal or illegal (until you get caught). Although it seems many people are running into censorship problems by companies that run websites and networks on the Internet, mainly conservatives and those critical of government. This is the road I'm going down. There is this not so little non-profit organization called ICANN. ICANN mainly controls and manages Domain Name System and Internet Protocols around the globe, which is a lot already. This organization is a direct result of a proposal from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a sub-division of the US Department of Commerce. Known as "The Green Paper" NTIA called to privatize the management of the Internet Domain Name System, and in 1998 along came ICANN. Now from the moment of ICANN's creation to present day, the US has maintained authority over ICANN in a Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN. President Barack Obama is about to shred this deal, and let ICANN do whatever they please and are in a way "for sale". This is leaving many to worry the UN, EU, China, or even Russia will make a deal, or multiple, with ICANN. Trust me there is plenty of reasons to be worried. The UN would be the most likely to assume authority, or make some deals with ICANN, and those deals could ruin the Internet we know and love today. ICANN can control nearly any website and any server connected to the Internet, and the US constitution and values have long protected users, innovation, and creativity on the Internet, and let's not forget about cyber security. Other nations may and could influence censorship and biased algorithms throughout the Internet and there will be nothing the US can do about it. As you know some nations hate the idea of an open and free Internet such as: China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and a few nations in the EU are catching on slowly, but surely like France and Germany. The EU has already made several antitrust cases against US companies that operate websites and networks on the Internet, and some fear more will follow once the US cedes control of the Internet. A new memorandum of agreement will probably be drafted, if this transition is done, between ICANN and the International Telecommunications Union. The ITU is the UN's NTIA. Simple as that. Why should we as Americans want other nations influencing the way we experience the Internet? We'll have no say in it, we'll juts have to accept it how it is. The US controlling the Internet now has always protected the freedom of the Internet. Listen I know, the Internet spans the globe, but why cease control of it to the globe when it's already controlled by the land of liberty? Let nations to continue to decide for themselves how the run the Internet in their country, and not have the power to push that influence on others. As much as I hate to say it, after what he did to Trump at the Republican Convention, but Ted Cruz may be our only voice to stop Obama. Congress can act to block Obama's plan if they can get enough votes to do so. It looks good on the GOP side, which I see no reason why any GOP congressman would not vote for it. Unless they're the typical cucks that really don't care and have the companies lobbying for it in their pockets, that's always a problem. 99.9% of the time the democratic congressman love wahetever Obama proposes. Here is Ted Cruz making the case at the Protecting Internet Freedom Subcommittee Hearing:
I mentioned companies that lobby for this above, and the ones that do shouldn't really surprise anyone. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have urged congress, in a signed letter, to support Obama's plan, and all three of them have one thing in common, censorship. It's like it's all connected to the globalist elite agenda, and the biggest medium to share and create ideas is the Internet. The letter from the companies, according to Reuters, said "it's imperative" that Congress let's Obama cease authority of the Internet. That is fishy if you ask me.
Other companies that signed the letter were: Amazon, Cloudflare, Yahoo, and several other technology trade firms according to Reuters. Sadly, it's all in the hands of Congress now, because Obama is going to pull the trigger on this if left unchallenged. Another sad thing is, like a bullet, once you pull the trigger and shoot you can't get it back, and I mean if Trump gets elected I don't think there will be anything he can do to get the Internet back. With Trump though, anything for America is possible. This is not a good thing, with something as big and powerful as the Internet, which has been protected by the United States since it's birth is about to be absorbed by globalist forces. To think ICANN is going to stay neutral is a stretch in the type of world we live in right now, but it is possible nothing will happen, and if Congress can't block this, then that's all we can rely on, is hope. We must hope that Ted Cruz, the GOP, and any uncucked Democrats block this transition. The globalist elites on both sides of the aisle need to get on board and realize the risks of this transition. That is the thing too, there is no actual benefit to the US or really even the globe. When ICANN came about due to the NTIA's proposal in 1998, the US has kept authority over ICANN and the Internet, and the Internet has been a free, open, and creative place for all in any nation that allows it that way. Why give it away if there is no reason to do so? President Obama needs to listen the people on this matter too, and not the special interest groups that want this to happen. After all he is the president for the people by people. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that the majority of Americans oppose this move, but to think Obama cares about the American people is a joke within itself. Another poll, conducted by Breitbart/Gravis found only 14% support the transition while 41% do not support it. Our great nation invented this great piece of technology we call the Internet, we are the reasons ICANN exists, and to just give it all up without even a debate or discussion about it, is not only wrong, but very suspicious. It just seems like something is going on here. We're going to have to sit and see what happens, and if the worse does happen, all we can do is hope that nothing changes.
Sources:
http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_arpanet.htm http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_darpa.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htmhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2016/most_still_oppose_end_to_u_s_control_of_internet https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/freedom-fighter-ted-cruz-leads-charge-to-keep-the-internet-away-from-liberal-censors http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-governance-idUSKCN11I2OT http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/30/exclusive-breitbartgravis-poll-reveals-americans-strongly-oppose-obamas-internet-handover/ |
Categories
All
Archives
October 2020
|