Twitter Incurs Republicans' Wrath
Related Article By This Author: Hawley Turns Up The Heat On Facebook
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defends its censorship of the New York Post's Hunter Biden exposé.
Fail Whale
The "Fail Whale" Twitter displayed in its early years during service interruptions.
Twitter's (TWTR) founders accidentally created an addictive platform that now has more than 150 million daily users. No competitor threatens Twitter's niche of breaking news and pithy commentary. The only foreseeable threat for years has been government intervention, and Twitter may have finally asked for it by censoring a newspaper article weeks before the election. Let's see why, and then look at how shareholders who are still bullish can limit their risk.
Background: A Potential Goldmine
As we noted four years ago, Twitter is a potential goldmine. For those who don't use Twitter, Jon Hendren summarized its appeal:
Gone are the days of refreshing CNN.com or whatever during current events. It's faster and easier to find the journalist closest to today's disaster and watch their Twitter feed instead. And while that journalist will certainly have a published article up within the next 15 or 20 minutes at their day job, their tweets on the subject have probably already been retweeted a few thousand times and seen by a couple million people. And if you believe the typical information addict is going to go back to refreshing individual blogs and news sites, that's ridiculous. [...]
The Fav-and-RT-based serotonin reward system unintentionally built into Twitter also has the side effect of forcing introverts to obsessively write pithy jokes for huge audiences for free, day in and day out. Free funny content! Sometimes by actual comedians you've heard of! And some of those times, from good comedians! Users don't even have to do anything special to gain access to that, they just open Twitter and read it. Free content shoots out like a fire hose.
On top of that, Twitter emerged as a platform for organic commerce: users sell each other tickets, make bets with each other, recommend all sorts of products to their followers. All Twitter had to do was to facilitate that commerce. Instead, it has incurred the wrath of Republican politicians by censoring a New York Post article critical of Hunter Biden.
Censoring The New York Post
On Wednesday, Twitter users were blocked from sharing the New York Post's exposé of Hunter Biden's emails.
Twitter's stated rationale for its censorship was that the Post's article included information it obtained without authorization.
Twitter users replied that Twitter didn't similarly censure other news articles based on unauthorized information, such as the recent New York Times article on President Trump's tax returns. Some users pointed out that, according to the Post's article, they obtained Hunter Biden's emails legally (reportedly, Biden left the laptop with a repair shop; after he didn't return to pay for the repair or pick up the laptop, it became the shop owner's legal property). Other users argued that the biggest scoops in journalism of the last fifty years relied on illegally obtained information, such as the Pentagon Papers.
Republican Reactions
Republican politicians such as Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri threatened to take action against Twitter.
President Trump called for repealing the FCC's Section 230, the regulation that enables Twitter and Facebook (FB) to avoid the potential liabilities associated with being a publisher.
All Bark And No Bite?
Observers on both ends of the political spectrum were quick to note that during the first two years of President Trump's term, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and did nothing to restrict social media companies. For example, this was the reaction of the liberal opponent of monopolies, Matt Stoller.
And this was conservative pundit Pedro Gonzalez's response to an angry tweet by Senator Tom Cotton:
In Case Their Bite Is Worse Than Their Bark This Time
In case the Republicans' bite is worse than their bark this time, and they materially impact Twitter, below are a couple of ways Twitter shareholders can stay long while strictly limiting their risk. Here, we scan for optimal, or least-expensive, hedges using put options and collars to protect a Twitter position.
In the video above, we limited our search to hedges expiring in March, but readers can experiment with different time frames as well.
Disclosure: David Pinsen is the founder of Portfolio Armor.
Breaking news, FBI confirms laptop and says no Russian Interference:
www.foxnews.com/.../sources-tell-fox-news-fbi-has-possession-of-purported-hunter-biden-laptop
Not surprised. It's what I've been saying all along.
Wow, well I'll be. I really hadn't believed they were legitimate.
Even if this true, it would just mean the Russians weren't involved, it does not mean the emails are legitimate. They still could have been hacked by the Trump campaign, Trump supporters, or some unknown 3rd party. Or I suppose it could mean it's all true after all. Only time will tell. I doubt we'll know before the election for sure.
To be fair, this does NOT say the FBI confirmed anything. It said some random anonymous source did. Which means very little. I could be that source for all you know. Why is it that the numerous anonymous sources that said Trump called soldiers "losers" were lying, but this single anonymous source is real?
We're in the final days before the election, people will say anything at this point to try to turn the election around for Trump. I'm not saying it's not true, but take anything we read until the election, with a dose of healthy skepticism.
Seriously? Linking to a one sentence article that states that's from an anonymous source? An anonymous source from the FBI? Or the Trump campaign?
I'm pretty sure the anonymous source is Giuliani! ;-) Or the Russian agent he's been accused of working with.
I'm very torn by all this. On the one hand I want social media to stop being a platform to push fake news and hate. But where do we draw the line? Personally I think the Biden laptop story smells way to fishy and has too many red flags to assume it's real. But Facebook and Twitter's action almost seem like election interference to me.
If it weren't real, why haven't the Bidens denied it? Why did Hunter Biden's lawyer recently ask the repair shop for the laptop back (indicating that it was Hunter's laptop)?
The laptop may be his. But that does not mean the contents are real. It could have been hacked or stolen (the repairman was legally blind and said it may not have been Hunter who dropped it off). There's no real evidence. All we've seen are pictures of emails which anyone could have manipulated or photoshopped.
And if they were legit, why is the FBI investigating Russia, and not Biden?
Hunter Biden signed for the laptop. And the FBI isn't investigating Russia in relation to the laptop; the director of national intelligence said the Russians had nothing to do with it.
None of that means the emails are NOT real. And I don't even care if they are faked if they can help #Trump win. He needs every vote he can get to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain!
Sad that you'd be happy to let Russia choose our next president, and don't care if he's elected on lies.
Russian collusion is #fakenews. Crazy conspiracy nonsense. The fact that the FBI is investigating Russia instead of the Biden family only proves that the are partisan and trying to bring down Trump.
Interesting theory @[Texan Hunter](user:61605). So let me get this straight... Russians interfering in the election to help elect Trump is a crazy conspiracy theory. But the FBI Interfering in the election to help elect Biden is completely believable? Oy boy. Someone is drinking the Trump koolaid.
I may vote for Trump, but I don't kid myself that he's a complete nut.
Russian collusion may be fake news, but Russian interference is not. The commies need to stay out of our elections. That's more important than whichever candidate wins.
Actually, the Biden campaign did deny it. They said no meeting took place and that they never heard of him. They said it's possible Biden may have passed near him at an event, but that there was no meeting ever organized. They also straight out said they believe it is Russian disinformation. They probably asked for the laptop back so they could do their own investigating. No one would have use for an old abandoned laptop otherwise.