Mediaboss Marketing

What has the FA said?

A statement said: The FA strongly condemns all forms of discrimination and is appalled by the online racism that has been aimed at some of our England players on social media.

We could not be clearer that anyone behind such disgusting behaviour is not welcome in following the team. We will do all we can to support the players affected while urging the toughest punishments possible for anyone responsible.

We will continue to do everything we can to stamp discrimination out of the game, but we implore government to act quickly and bring in the appropriate legislation so this abuse has real life consequences.

Social media companies need to step up and take accountability and action to ban abusers from their platforms, gather evidence that can lead to prosecution and support making their platforms free from this type of abhorrent abuse.

A Facebook Company Spokesperson, speaking on behalf of Instagram said: No one should have to experience racist abuse anywhere, and we dont want it on Instagram. We quickly removed comments and accounts directing abuse at Englands footballers last night and well continue to take action against those that break our rules.

In addition to our work to remove this content, we encourage all players to turn on Hidden Words, a tool which means no one has to see abuse in their comments or DMs. No one thing will fix this challenge overnight, but were committed to keeping our community safe from abuse.

Tony Burnett, CEO of Kick It Out, the organisation built to tackle discrimination in football has said: The racist abuse however aimed at some of the England players on social media last night, is appalling and completely unacceptable.

"We will continue to work with our partners in football to drive discrimination out of the game, but we call on those with the power to act now. The social media companies need to do more to stamp out abuse on their platforms, and the government also need to step up and keep its promise to regulate. The Online Safety Bill could be a game changer and we aim to help make that happen.

The Metropolitan Police tweeted: We are aware of a number of offensive and racist social media comments being directed towards footballers following the #Euro2020 final.

This abuse is totally unacceptable, it will not be tolerated and it will be investigated.

No 10 also condemned the abuse.

Johnson said: This England team deserve to be lauded as heroes, not racially abused on social media. Those responsible for this appalling abuse should be ashamed of themselves.

Arsenal meanwhile said in a statement: Bukayo has been with us since he was seven and the whole club couldnt have been prouder to see him represent England throughout the tournament. You could feel it right across the club.

Our message to Bukayo is: hold your head high, we are so very proud of you and we cannot wait to welcome you back home to Arsenal soon.

Rashford, Saka and Sancho have had a number of comments on their past Instagram posts after their penalty misses on Sunday night.

They have been targeted with monkey emojis and other racially abusive comments since the end of the game.

It was a familiar story for England as they lost on penalties to Italy having come within a whisker of winning their first major trophy in 55 years.

Jordan Pickford saved twice from the spot but ultimately misses from Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka meant Italy emerged victorious.

England got the dream start when Luke Shaw gave the hosts the lead after just two minutes, smashing home Trippiers cross brilliantly from close range. Gareth Southgates side looked a far cry from previous England teams and treated the home fans to a glorious first half in which they were largely in control.

It was a different story after the break as Roberto Mancinis team began to exert control and, after Italy tested Pickford twice in quick succession, Leonardo Bonucci was on hand to force the ball home from close range after the England keeper turned Marco Verrattis effort onto the post.

England improved as the second half wore on having looked at one point as though they were in danger of getting blown away by a resurgent Italy.

Extra time was a cagey affair with few chances at either end before the dreaded sight of a penalty shootout to end the tournament. Pickford did admirably but it was his opposite number, Gianluigi Donnarumma, who emerged as the hero.

(Photo: Robbie Jay Barratt - AMA/Getty Images)

See more here:
Saka, Rashford and Sancho racially abused on social media after England Euro 2020 defeat - The Athletic

There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued at $23 billion, as of business close on July 7.

At the heart of this rally are AMC's passionate army of retail investors, collectively known as "apes" -- an homage to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where leader Caesar infers that apes are stronger together. This might sound like a feel-good story whereby retail is finally exacting its revenge on Wall Street, but the reality is that AMC has become a battleground pump-and-dump scheme driven higher almost entirely by the misinformation and lies spread by its retail investors.

While I've previously covered some aspects of the misinformation campaign used as the foundation for the rally in AMC's stock, below are the eight most pervasive lies that have fueled this pump-and-dump scheme.

Image source: Getty Images.

The whopper of all lies exchanged on message boards and via YouTube is the idea that hedge fund short-selling is somehow responsible for bankrupting businesses.

The reality is that the operating performance of a company determines whether or not it thrives or goes under. There are plenty of companies whose share prices are under $1 that aren't bankrupt, and there are companies with share prices north of $1 that ultimately file for bankruptcy protection. Investors who choose to buy or short-sell stock are simply betting on an outcome. They don't control or influence how well or poorly the underlying business performs.

Put another way, if I buy $1 billion worth of Applestock tomorrow, I might help lift its share price, but I've not improved its sales or profit potential one iota. Likewise, if I short-sell Apple's stock tomorrow, I haven't hurt its sales potential or profitability at all. Why would this hypothetical scenario be any different with AMC? Hint: It's not.

Image source: Getty Images.

Another dose of misinformation from AMC's apes is that short sellers of the stock have to cover. Specifically, apes are implying that there's some level of urgency here and that the disorder from excessive covering will lead to the "mother of all short squeezes."

The truth is that short-sellers "have to cover" as much as apes "have" to sell their position. In other words, short-sellers can cover their position at their leisure.

What's more, hedge fund assets under management jumped to $4.07 trillion in June 2021, according to BarclayHedge. For short-covering to be disorderly, a massive wave of margin calls would need to come into play. Since the vast majority of hedge funds are diversified, and they have well over $4 trillion in assets in their sails, the chance of a margin call wave forcing short covering is virtually nonexistent.

Image source: Getty Images.

Just as they teach every salesperson, creating a sense of urgency with customers (i.e., potential new investors) is important. Apes are constantly hyping the idea that a short squeeze is imminent, or at worst right around the corner. Unfortunately, it's been five months since this ongoing claim began making its rounds, and there's nothing these retail folks can say to substantiate it.

Aside from an institutional investor/hedge fund margin call wave being highly unlikely, history has also showed that short squeeze candidates have a poor track record of success. Earlier this year, I looked at the trailing three-month returns of 114 stocks with short interest above 20% and a market cap of at least $300 million. Only 9 of 114 stocks had gained 10% or more, while 94 of 114 had a negative three-month return.

Apes need fresh capital to keep this pump-and-dump scheme going, but the data clearly shows that short squeezes rarely pay off.

Image source: Getty Images.

AMC's retail investors are also quick to dismiss anything having to do with concrete fundamental data. Whether it's the company's operating performance, industry ticket-sale trends, or AMC's balance sheet, they'll proudly proclaim it as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and remind you this isn't a fundamental play. They do this because AMC's operating performance and balance sheet are nothing short of a horror movie, and they damage the misinformation campaign being put forward on social media and YouTube.

I'll let you in on an investing secret that tenured investors know: Fundamentals always matter. Purposefully telling new investors to ignore fundamentals is like telling a used car buyer not to inspect the engine and just trust that everything is OK.

For instance, social media was buzzing about Washington Prime Group's short squeeze potential over the weekend of June 12 and 13. The company filed for bankruptcy protection late Sunday night (June 13), halving investors' stakes the following morning. The engine (fundamentals) drives the car; not the other way around.

Image source: Getty Images.

AMC's apes need to create the impression that anything negative said about their company's stock on television, radio, the internet, or print can't possibly be true, and telling the lie that hedge funds control the mainstream media (MSM) is the easiest way to accomplish that task. Again, this pump-and-dump scam needs fresh capital to keep moving higher, therefore presenting the media as evil is an easy way to try to rally new investors to the retail cause.

But, as is all-too-common with the ape agenda, it's devoid of fact.

It just so happens that Harvard University provided a painstakingly thorough look at MSM ownership for 176 of the most influential media companies/outlets in May 2021. The findings? Only five of the 176 outlets are controlled or majority-controlled by private hedge funds. Apes simply hate hearing bad things said about AMC and will go to any lengths necessary to obfuscate those facts, including lying about MSM.

Image source: Getty Images.

To build on the previous point, AMC's impassioned retail investors will also claim inherent ownership biases in the anchors, guests, authors, and so on, who rail against their stock. This is necessary to help recruit fresh capital to their cause by trying to create an "us vs. them" mentality.

To offer an example, I've personally been told on social media many dozens of times that I'm "obviously short" or "clearly losing a lot of money" because of the journalistic position I've taken on AMC. While I can't speak for any other company, I can proudly claim that my stock holdings are public information, and they're updated daily if I make a move. To boot, article disclosures state any positions I, and my company, have for any stock mentioned. This includes short positions, as well as any options ownership. The icing on the cake is that I also publicly announce my trading activity on Twitter.

Despite this transparent information, apes constantly and falsely insinuate a financial interest when none exists.

Image source: Getty Images.

This is one I find particularly amusing, because apes are more than willing to welcome institutional investors with open arms if they happen to own shares of AMC.

Retail investors regularly use BlackRock's and Vanguard's ownership of AMC stock as a reason to promote optimism. However, this tells only a fraction of the real story. BlackRock and Vanguard are two of the largest institutional investment firms in the country, based on assets under management. As of their mid-May 13F filings, which detailed their holdings for the first quarter, BlackRock had close to 5,000 positions, with Vanguard chiming in with more than 4,000 positions. During Q1, BlackRock and Vanguard added to more than 3,900 and 3,200 of these stakes, respectively.

Put another way, BlackRock and Vanguard have so many product offerings that they have a stake in virtually every stock listed in an index. Saying that BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC is bullish is akin to saying you bought shares of Fordstock because you like red paint.

As a percentage of shares outstanding, hedge fund and overall institutional ownership in AMC fell during the first quarter from the sequential fourth quarter. That's a fact!

Image source: Getty Images.

The eighth and final mammoth lie that AMC's retail investors rely on to coerce community compliance and bring in fresh capital is the idea that apes saved AMC. These folks genuinely believe that by purchasing shares of AMC they've somehow saved the company from going bankrupt.

As I discussed with the first lie on this list, buying and selling stock has absolutely no influence on how well or poorly a company performs from an operating standpoint. Even if apes were to buy every share in existence, AMC could still go bankrupt if its operating performance doesn't improve. And based on its 2027 bonds trading well below par, bondholders aren't convinced that things will improve enough to save the company.

What really saves companies from bankruptcy is their operating performance and the actions of management. In AMC's case, selling hundreds of millions of shares of stock an issuing high-interest debt last year and in early January gave it the financial lifeline needed to survive the worst of the pandemic. That's not apes saving AMC; that's the company's actions extending a lifeline.

If anything, apes are purposely harming AMC by tying the hands of CEO Adam Aron and shooting down any additional opportunities for the company to raise capital and shore up its balance sheet.

If this list of lies shows anything, it's the lengths apes will go to manipulate AMC's share price. However, history is very clear that all pump-and-dump schemes end in disaster. That's not FUD. It's a practical guarantee.

Caveat emptor.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

See the article here:
8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme - Motley Fool

By Michelle Toh, CNN Business

Chinese regulators have cleared the way for Tencent to take complete control of Sogou, a major search engine that could help the tech firm take on market leader Baidu.

The approval is a welcome blessing from Chinese regulators who have been cracking down hard recently on internet giants, shaking the ambitions of some of the countrys most powerful companies.

Chinas State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) said Tuesday that it had unconditionally approved the buyout, which will take New York-listed Sogou private. The $3.5 billion deal gives Tencent full control of the search firm. It is the companys majority shareholder, currently holding about 39%.

This merger is powerful, said Edith Yeung, a general partner at Silicon Valley venture capital firm Race Capital and author of the China Internet Report.

Yeung predicted that with Sogou entirely under its wing, Tencent could eventually become the biggest search engine in mainland China if and only if they know how to leverage Tencents huge [trove] of data, she added. Right now, Sogou is one of the countrys biggest search engines, behind longtime industry leader Baidu.

Investors responded swiftly to the news. Shares of Tencent shot up 3.9% in Hong Kong on Tuesday, while Sogou jumped 2.5% in premarket trading in New York. The news helped other tech stocks shine, too. Hong Kongs Hang Seng Tech Index rose 1.9% Tuesday.

The Tencent announcement is some very welcome news in the China tech sector in the context of the recent clampdown, and has lifted sentiment across the whole space today, said Jeffrey Halley, senior market analyst for Asia Pacific at OANDA.

The all-clear from regulators is notable at a time when China has been cracking down on Big Tech, sending a chill through markets.

Just days ago, Tencent itself was handed a setback as regulators scuttled its plan to merge two of Chinas top video game streaming websites, Douyu and Huya. Tencent is the largest shareholder in each.

Tencent shares slid Monday on that news. The company has lost almost $261 billion in market value since its most recent peak in January.

In a statement Saturday, the SAMR cited concerns that the video game merger would give Tencent too much control over the marketplace. Both players are publicly traded in New York, and have a combined market capitalization of $5.1 billion.

Chinese regulators have for months been cracking down on what they see as anti-competitive behavior within its borders, but over the past few weeks, the focus appears to have intensified on companies whose shares trade overseas.

Over the weekend, the Cyberspace Administration of China the countrys powerful internet watchdog also proposed that any company with data on more than one million Chinese users must seek the agencys approval before listing its shares overseas. It proposed that companies must submit IPO materials to the agency for review ahead of listing.

Yeung noted the new measures, saying that it was too early to tell how Tencents latest win could affect sentiment in the sector more broadly.

[Its] very tough to say, she said. I would take the wait-and-see attitude.

Meanwhile, Halley predicted that Chinese tech stocks could continue to face pressure in the near term.

I believe it is but a temporary reprieve, he said of Tencents approval. I believe that [Chinese] political risk will continue to act as a discounting price factor on mainland technology stocks going forward.

CNNs Beijing bureau and Laura He contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire & 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

The rest is here:
Tencent just got a bit of good news from Chinese regulators on its Sogou deal | NewsChannel 3-12 - KEYT

At a time when WhatsApp and Twitter are in a tussle with the government over the new IT Rules, lawyer and public policy researcher Smriti Parsheera, speaking before a nationwide audience, discusses questions on accountability, free speech and what privacy means on social media. Edited excerpts:

The world over, including in India, there is this concept, the idea of intermediaries being exempt, the safe harbour being provided to them, as long as they are not actively engaged in the transmission that is taking place on their network. What the Indian government is now trying to do with these rules is try to change the balance of what the established legal position on that has been. And while it is hard to fault them on the basis of why this is being done, I think there is much to fault in the manner in which this is being done. So thats really the background of why states want to intervene, where this is coming from, and I think on the other part of it, there is obviously a geopolitical angle to all of this.

India is not alone in asserting digital sovereignty. This is happening across Europe. Germany already has a law which does a lot of what India is seeking to do through these intermediary rules. Europe is in the process of debating a new Digital Services Act and digital markets But we are far from a settled position on this. I think everywhere, this will be litigated because there are key issues of freedom of speech and expression, so it is a few years before we reach a kind of a settled global position on any of this.

Newsletter|Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

On putting liability on social media companies, which are not creating content

As per the safe harbour principle, which we now also adopt in the Information Technology Act Section 79 deals with that the point is that they are not. Subject to complying with certain conditions, they are not liable for third party conduct or using services that they provide, as long as they are not editing this content, they are not airing or abetting an unlawful activity happening through their platform, and when they have knowledge received on behalf of the government, or on behalf of a court order, then they do something to take down that comment, or they restrict access to that comment.

So there are circumstances in which that safe harbour will be broken. So as long as you meet the rules and requirement of this area, the primary law says that they would be entitled to an exemption to liability. But it says that in addition to not doing all of these things, they need to exercise due diligence, and they need to abide by the guidelines framed by the government. And these new guidelines are those which the government expects them to abide by and rely upon in order to continue to gain the benefits of intermediary exemption.

So there are certain obligations, and some of these already existed in the 2011 version which have been tweaked and strengthened. So the broad starting obligation is that for everyone who is a user of these intermediaries, they have an obligation to convey to them that these are the dos and donts on my platform so you cant do intellectual property breaches So actually some of that is also problematic. To take an example, they say you cant put out a comment which is patently false and put out with the intent to harm someone. And the intermediary is saying it is typical to find this in terms and conditions, but if someone starts thinking and enforcing this and applying their mind in every scenario, then of course it becomes problematic on what you want the intermediary to do, and when will something be offensive, and how is something determined to be patently false, and how will they know the intent of the person behind putting out that patently false message.

So for all intermediaries, there is a requirement of a grievance redressal mechanism to be created and there is definitely a mechanism to access that.

The whole reason we had intermediary guidelines and this idea of safe harbour came about in Indian law, is related to a case that took place in 2004 where this company called baazi.com, a subsidiary of eBay, had their CEO who was prosecuted directly in his individual capacity as the director for an offence which involved an explicit sexual MMS clip being sold on that platform. So this was a person and the grievance against him was that they didnt exercise due diligence, they didnt have the right filtering mechanism And this person felt that the CEO as well as the general manager of the company should be individually liable for it. This was, of course, subsequently turned down by later courts, but the fact that this happened and the fact that an employee of a company who is really not in a position to assess all content that goes up and verify it and take that down So there is a requirement for having systems in place, but to have individual liability for employees problems come with that.

This is the classic problem that in a lot of legal texts is called the chilling effect. What is the chilling effect on speech when you have certain regulations around what speech is permitted and not permitted? Then the tendencies of people making that speech is to avoid that zone of ambiguity altogether and self-censor and not say things which could potentially be taken down, potentially lead you through any kind of trouble.

Once these systems are in place and there is sanction to do it for xyz things, there is this problem of mission creep. This notion of mission creep is that when a technology is set up for a certain purpose, you often end up saying that why not use it for that purpose also.

On where the user fits in all this

As a user, you have very little agency in a lot of these transactions taking place between these intermediaries. So there are two ways the user needs to and could have a voice. One is about consultation and debate around any of these rules before they came into place

The second part is in our capacity as individuals who are users of these services vis-a-vis the companies. The bigger problem with privacy both vis-a-vis the company as well as the government is that a lot of the time the harms from privacy violations are invisible. Today I dont realise what is the problem if this data is shared or if the data goes out somewhere. The only time someone thinks about it is when there are data breach incidents. But for the rest of it, a lot of the harms from privacy are invisible because I dont realise the manner in which my thought process is being re-shaped, where the secondary uses of data are happening and what could happen in the future based on my data because not all decisions about me are based on my data, they are based on data of people who are profiled in a similar manner as me

People come with this mindset that I have nothing to hide, so why should I care about this? But the point is that everyone has a password on their emails, everyone has certain boundaries around information they regard as private. And if you think about the level of intrusion which is possible, if there is a system from which all traffic between all users in the country is flowing, which the government can access through a centralised monitoring system, you would worry a little more about it.

I wouldnt say you have no redressal, but we dont have an effective redressal. So the provision that does exist is Section 43(A) of the Information Technology Act, which basically says that if there is a corporate who takes your sensitive personal information and fails to take reasonable security measures to protect that information, and there is harm caused to you, they are entitled to give you compensation for that. But in practice, it is not something most users know about, or implemented very often.

Of course, this is all supposed to be redressed through the Personal Data Protection Bill which we have been debating for a while.

One of the important things that came out of the right to privacy judgment was that the right to privacy has two aspects. It gives you protection against the state and the state is not supposed to breach your privacy in a manner unless its fair, just and reasonable. So it is not absolute protection, but there is a framework around that. But you need to go to a court, you need to claim a constitutional breach of the right, which is again, in theory available to everyone but in practice not really accessible for everyone to do that. But there is also an obligation on the state to make sure that third parties are not able to violate my privacy. To put in place a legal framework, which protects me, thats really where this Data Protection Bill is emanating from.

There is one set of provisions which apply to all of data fiduciary. The Justice Srikrishna Committee used this term data fiduciary where they say we want the person deciding what to do with the data to be called a fiduciary. So they cast a whole set of obligations with the fiduciaries which start with the basic requirements like notice to the person on what the data is being used for, take only as much data as is necessary for your specific purpose. So there is a whole set of rights being given to individuals that I have the ability to access my data and find out what each entity has about me; if there is a problem in it I have a right to ask for correction of it, I have a right to be forgotten where there is a balancing to be done between my privacy and the public interest of that data. But there is a clause even within this law which talks about significant data fiduciary. And again it talks about social media intermediaries being included within this, which have an enhanced set of obligations. So, before you start doing your processing of certain kinds of data, youll need to have frameworks that talk about what kind of processing you will need to do, how will this be done, you will need a third party independent audit of all of these processes. One doesnt know what those limits would be, but it is possible since these two policy processes are happening in parallel that it might be the same as the intermediary rules.

On whether weakening of encryption, as demanded, can result in government using it to track activists and political opponents

This whole reciprocity of how things work on the Internet is really important for countries to realise. Any obligation that you want on foreign entities will also be expected at some point to be replicated on your entity in other jurisdictions. India might be thinking that it has more foreign companies than Indian companies abroad, but it is a very valid point that you should be able to reciprocate with similar obligations being imposed on your companies and misuse and tracking. That is a legitimate concern and that can happen.

On what is wrong in government trying to control social media

Intermediaries should not be the judges of speech, they should not become the gatekeepers of speech, and even if they are, we need to be much more accountable, but I think the need to regulate that and the need to have some controls around that does not have to necessarily be conflated with the question of intermediary liability and the question of safe harbour. You can have legal requirements like for example the data protection requirement is imposing obligations on significant intermediaries , but its not linking a breach of that to the fact that now we will hold you liable for the fake news that took place, or for the underlying crime that was committed

Transcribed by Mehr Gill

Follow this link:
Smriti Parsheera: Need to put systems in place, but to have individual liability for employees problems come with that - The Indian Express

This is exactly what the New York Giants were hoping for when quarterback Eli Manning returned to the team last month.

On Monday, the Giants announced plans for Fan Fest next month during training camp at MetLife Stadium. The team then announced on Twitter that it was aware of some technical difficulties fans were having with securing tickets to the event.

We are aware of errors fans are receiving while trying to secure tickets for Giants Fan Fest. We are working to resolve them and will provide an update shortly. Tickets will remain available and no one will be shut out!

Thats where Manning comes in. He followed up the tweet from the team account with one of his own:

I am working on this. Part of my new job requirements. Control/Alt/Delete is not working so far.

Sign up forGiants Extra:Get exclusive news, behind-the-scenes observations and the ability to text directly with reporters

The Giants announced in June Manning was rejoining the franchise in an off-the-field capacity. In the teams press release announcing the move, Manning made it quite clear hes ready to roll up his sleeves.

After not being able to come back in the facility for a full year, to finally see my former teammates and the individuals Ive spent the past 16 years with like the trainers and equipment guys, video, scouting, management, owners its incredibly exciting to be back, Manning said. Staying involved with this organization is very important to me. I love the organization, love the Giants and the fans, and so I want to do anything possible to help them out and be a part of it. Mannings new role will include several assignments.

Im willing to do anything, he said. But Im focused on the business side with corporate partners and on community relations, which was always so important to me while I was playing here and is something, Ive placed a high priority on throughout my life. Im looking forward to seeing where I can make the most impact in helping the Giants achieve their business and community goals.

As for Fan Fest, heres what you need to know:

To celebrate the return of fans for the 2021 NFL season, the New York Giants will host the 2021 Giants Fan Fest presented by Quest Diagnostics at MetLife Stadium on Wednesday, August 11 at 6 p.m.

Fans can enjoy an evening of football, food and fun as the Giants hold their only open practice of the year. The Giants Fan Fest will feature fun activities for all ages, autographs by Giants Legends, select discounted concession and apparel items, as well as a spectacular post-practice fireworks show.

Reserve free digital tickets for this special event by visitingGiants.com/FanFest.

Get Giants text messages:Cut through the clutter of social media and text directly with beat writers. Plus, exclusive news and analysis. Sign up now for a free trial.

Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting NJ.com with a subscription.

Mike Rosenstein may be reached at mrosenstein@njadvancemedia.com. Tell us your coronavirus story or send a tip here.

Read the rest here:
Giants Eli Manning reminds everyone why hes so much fun to follow on Twitter - NJ.com