#MetroSpace | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

marbacs-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Penny Stock Alerts

“PENNY STOCK ALERTS”

Offer Best and Free Penny Stocks Alarms to Trade

The shares you have been reading about here are those which are expensive to put money into. You don't need to stick with these expensive stocks. You have the choice to select best and completely free penny stocks alarms. Penny stocks are stocks from companies that trade at very low values. The SEC says that a penny stock has a value of less than $5 a share and would not be recorded on a few of the important exchanges. On the outside, penny stocks sound interesting because of how inexpensive they are. At exactly the same time, these stocks are risky and tough to work with because it's impossible to figure out where they may go when you exchange them. There are some things you can do to trade them successfully using our Penny Stock Alerts}.

What's a Penny Stock?

A penny stock is a stock which has a very small market cap. The stock can be trading in certain smaller markets. In america, penny stocks are traded over the counter. That is, the transactions are handled between parties with no exchange. The OTC Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets both record information on these penny stocks have been organized. The most noteworthy characteristic of penny stocks is they have very smaller values.

As an instance, the tiny real estate firm Metrospaces trades as an OTC stock under the MSPC symbol. At the start of 2018, Metrospaces was trading at $0.0001 per share. Not many penny stocks are that cheap. Potnetwork Holdings, another OTC inventory with the POTN symbol, is a stock of a firm dedicated to hemp merchandise. The company has a stock that has been trading for much of 2018 at around 50 cents per share.

The general thing about penny stocks is they are very affordable. However, as you will read next, these stocks are incredibly risky.

Serious Threats

Hard to PrepareTrades

Many investment agents won't utilize penny stocks with the belief that they are overly risky and difficult to recognize. They may also struggle with intending orders as a result of markets involved being slower than the significant ones. There's also the worry about what happens when a single trade shifts the value of this stock.

No Real Standards

Although a lot of stocks have strong standards for the way they should be traded, you aren't going to find those penny stocks. A stock such as this doesn't need to fulfill any significant standards to become onto a market. The OTCBB does ask that the shares which it lists do record documents with the SEC, but this isn't necessarily a requirement. You can still assess the SEC to see whether a stock that you want to purchase has appropriate filings, however that could be hard to find.

Hard to Find Information

The following issue surrounding OTC penny stocks is that you may not get enough information on what's available. You're not going to find much info on penny stocks because information bureaus aren't likely to report on them. These organizations are too little for some of these news agencies to actually take seriously.

You might read advice about penny stock tips to check out for example stocks which may be intriguing that people put money into. These reports are often created with heavily biased information by those who have places in those shares. They may also give you names and logos but not enough info about what you can expect to realize from those shares. This makes it harder for you to really get the details which you want. What is even worse is these stocks aren't easy to find access to via a site. If you attempted to type in"OTC stock quotes" on an internet search box, then you could just come across a bunch of blogs that record details on such quotations. This just makes penny stocks more unreliable due to the lack of available information in the process.

Easy to Inflate or Fix

Perhaps you have seen cases where the value of a penny stock has undergone a dramatic change in a really short moment? It then went down to $0.0003 in just a day and finally to $0.0002.

Imagine if you had a thousand shares in RCMH now? You may have bought them when the stock was $0.0008 together with the belief that the inventory would keep on increasing. You would have spent $800 on the stock. As that stock drops back to $0.0003, you would have dropped $500 in your investment. Simply put, you went with the belief that the stock would keep on increasing in value, but stock really bottomed out.

This RCMH stock may have increased in value because one person made a huge trade in that stock. This person may have bought 10 million or more shares in RCMH and then sold them off in a few hours or days following the stock saw a sizable increase. Worse, that person may be someone from within the company. This is a valid problem for penny stocks that many men and women don't consider. In reality, this frequently occurs with stocks which aren't very liquid. A stock without any liquidity is not going to change much in worth unless one individual managed to put in a huge order and find a sizable number of stocks sold or bought all at once.

Pumping and Dumping

The pump and dump plan is a related issue that penny stock alerts frequently struggle with. Although it is not illegal, it certainly feels like it should be since it directly manipulates the value of a penny stock and is often done by someone from within the business, such as:

1. A individual buys a large number of shares in a stock. This is often for penny stocks, though it might theoretically occur at any stock. They are a lot easier to manipulate.

2. This individual then attempts to promote a stock by providing false or possibly misleading statements about the stock's ability to grow. In the past, this has been done through cold calling methods by phone. Today, people are able to visit social media or put up their own blogs to promote these stocks.

3. Folks then fall for these statements and buy the inventory. The men and women who choose to buy these stocks are often willing to spend in them without even thinking twice. They may be emotionally pressured into investing in these stocks rather than exploring the business thoroughly.

4. After enough men and women buy the shares in question, the person who started the scheme will sell his shares off as that person will have made enough money from the folks buying the stock.

5. The troubles with the pump and dump scheme are extremely important.

We provide the very Best Penny Stock Alert Service. We provide a 7 day trial so that you can see for yourself if these alarms work for you. We have more than double our money in the 6 months. We think you'll be quite happy with our services.

“BEST PENNY STOCK ALERT SERVICE” https://tradestockalerts.com/penny-stock-alerts

1 note · View note

blogsites495-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Offer Free and Best Penny Stocks Alerts to Trade

The stocks you have been reading about here are those which are costly to put money into. You do not need to stay with those expensive stocks. You have the choice to choose best and completely free penny stocks alarms. Penny stocks are stocks from companies that trade at very low prices. On the outside, penny stocks seem interesting as to how cheap they are. At the exact same time, these stocks are risky and tough to work with since it is impossible to determine where they might go when you trade them. There are a number of things you can do in order to trade them successfully with our Penny Stock Alerts.

What's a Penny Stock?

A penny stock is a stock which has quite a modest market cap. The stock is also trading in some smaller markets. In other words, the transactions are handled between parties with no exchange. The most noteworthy characteristic of penny stocks is that they have very smaller values. Some of the stocks have a high prospect of gain through our penny stock alert service.

As an instance, the tiny property company Metrospaces trades as an OTC stock under the MSPC emblem. Not many penny stocks are that cheap. Potnetwork Holdings, another OTC inventory with the POTN symbol, is an inventory of a firm devoted to hemp products. The company has a stock that has been investing for much of 2018 at around 50 cents per share.

The overall thing about penny stocks is they are very affordable. However, as you'll read next, these stocks are extremely risky.

Serious Risks

Hard to PrepareTrades

Many investment agents will not work with penny stocks together with the belief that they are overly risky and hard to identify. They might also struggle with intending orders due to the economies involved being slower than the major ones. There's also the worry about what happens when a single trade changes the value of the stock.

No Real Standards

Although many stocks have powerful standards for the way they should be traded, you aren't likely to find these in penny stocks. A stock like this doesn't need to meet any substantial standards to get on a market. The OTCBB does request that the shares which it lists do record documents with the SEC, but this is not necessarily a requirement. You can still check the SEC to see whether a stock that you need to invest in has proper filings, however that may be hard to find.

Difficult to Find Information

The following issue surrounding OTC penny stocks is that you might not get enough details on what's available. You're not going to find much information on penny stocks since information agencies are not going to report on them. All these companies are too little for some of these news agencies to actually take seriously.

You may read information on about penny stock suggestions to check out including stocks that might be intriguing that people put money into. Those reports are often made with heavily biased information by people who have places in those stocks. They might also give you names and logos but not enough information about what you can expect to realize from these stocks. This makes it harder for you to actually get the details which you want. What's even worse is these stocks are not simple to get access to through a website. If you attempted to type in"OTC stock quotes" on a search box, then you could just come across a bunch of blogs that record details on these quotes. This just makes penny stocks more unreliable due to the lack of accessible information in the process.

Easy to Inflate or Adjust

Perhaps you have noticed cases where the worth of a penny stock has undergone a dramatic change in a really brief time? For instance, in February 2018, Reach Messaging Holdings, an OTC stock under the RCMH ticker, experienced a substantial bump in its value that was really short-lived. It then went back down to $0.0003 within just a day and finally to $0.0002.

Imagine if you had a thousand shares in RCMH at this point? You may have bought them as soon as the stock was $0.0008 together with the belief that the inventory would continue increasing. As that inventory drops back to $0.0003, you'd have lost $500 in your investment. In other words, you moved with the belief that the stock would keep on increasing in value, but stock really bottomed out.

This RCMH inventory may have increased in value because one person made a huge trade in that stock. This person might have bought 10 million or more stocks in RCMH and then sold them off in a couple of hours or days following the inventory saw a sizable increase. Worse, that person might be someone from within the company. This is a valid issue for penny stocks that many people fail to think about. In fact, this often occurs with stocks which are not very liquid. A stock that has no liquidity is not going to change much in worth unless one person managed to put in a huge order and get a large number of shares sold or purchased all at one time.

Pumping and Dumping

The pump and ditch plan is a related problem that penny stock alarms often struggle with. Although it is not illegal, it certainly feels like it should be since it directly impacts the value of a penny stock and is often done by someone from within the business, for example:

1. A person buys a high number of stocks in a stock. This is often for penny stocks, though it might theoretically occur at any stock. The shortage of quantity of several penny stocks makes them more likely to be targeted by pump and dump schemes. They are much simpler to manipulate.

2. That person then tries to market a stock by offering false or possibly misleading statements about the stock's ability to grow. In years past this has been done through cold calling techniques by phone. Nowadays, people can go to social media or put up their own sites to market those stocks.

3. People then fall for these statements and purchase the stock. The people who choose to buy these stocks are often willing to spend in them without even thinking twice. They might be emotionally pressured into investing in such stocks and not investigating the company thoroughly.

4. After enough people buy the shares in question, the individual who started the scheme will sell off his shares as that person will have made enough money from the people purchasing the stock.

5. The people who dropped for the pump and dump scheme could lose hundreds or perhaps tens of thousands of dollars from this trick.

We offer the very Best Penny Stock Alert Service. We provide a 7 day trial so you can see for yourself whether these alerts work for you. We've more than double our money in the 6 months. We believe you will be very happy with our services.

1 note · View note

maxgainzzz · 6 years ago

Text

Metrospaces, Inc. (MSPC: Pink Current) | Metrospaces Signs Binding JV to Acquire Profitable Revenue Producing Licensed Cannabis Facility in California

from OTC Markets Group - News, Filings & Corporate Actions http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MSPC/news?id=214114

#stocks #otc #financial #pennystocks #otcmarkets

1 note · View note

hemp-pot · 4 years ago

Text

Metrospaces Announces Strategic Investment in Good Hemp - GlobeNewswire

Metrospaces Announces Strategic Investment in Good Hemp GlobeNewswire source https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/02/2240588/0/en/Metrospaces-Announces-Strategic-Investment-in-Good-Hemp.html

#||| Hemp #Marijuana #Stoner #Cannabis #Medical Marijuana

0 notes

aestheticofaccumulation · 5 years ago

Text

Accumulation of/as waste. “Care. Not Convenience,” at (scene)Metrospace in East Lansing, MI. Artists: Lissy Goralnik, Jae Won Lee, and Kelly Salchow MacArthur.

#plastic #accumulation #art #eastlansing

0 notes

edisonashley · 5 years ago

Text

Second Circuit Issues Powerful Section 230 Win to Facebook in “Material Support for Terrorists” Case–Force v. Facebook

In a 101 page set of opinions, the Second Circuit ruled emphatically for Facebook in one of the multitudinous lawsuits alleging that it provided material support to terrorists (in this case, Hamas). The majority relied exclusively on Section 230, in the process absolutely destroying some of the commonly-advanced arguments seeking to eviscerate Section 230. The result is a powerful win for Facebook and for Section 230. It should end any remaining hope for lawsuits against social media providers for materially supporting terrorists.

The majority opinion’s rousing endorsement of Section 230 is diminished a bit by a lengthy and detailed dissent railing against Facebook and Section 230. The majority clearly and persuasively rebutted the dissent’s argument, so it’s possible the dissent will quietly fade into oblivion. However, I’m sure Facebook- and Section 230-haters will find plenty to embrace in the dissent.

Key Points from the Majority Opinion

Section 230 Should Be Read Broadly. “the Circuits are in general agreement that the text of Section 230(c)(1) should be construed broadly in favor of immunity.” Cites to FTC v. LeadClick, Marshall’s Locksmith v. Google, Doe v. Backpage, Jones v. Dirty World, Doe v. MySpace, Almeida v. Amazon, Carafano v. Metrospace, and Zeran v. AOL.

Publisher Claims. “it is well established that Section 230(c)(1) applies not only to defamation claims, where publication is an explicit element, but also to claims where ‘the duty that the plaintiff alleges the defendant violated derives from the defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker.'”

In this case, “Plaintiffs seek to hold Facebook liable for ‘giving Hamas a forum with which to communicate and for actively bringing Hamas’ message to interested parties.’ But that alleged conduct by Facebook falls within the heartland of what it means to be the “publisher” of information under Section 230(c)(1). So, too, does Facebook’s alleged failure to delete content from Hamas members’ Facebook pages.”

Algorithmic Content/Ad Presentation Is Irrelevant.

The majority and dissent disagree about the implications of Facebook’s algorithmic activities. A couple of years ago, a few folks claimed that algorithmic activity by social media providers was materially different than the conditions prevailing in 1995 when Congress adopted Section 230, and therefore Section 230 should be not be available for these new technological developments. This argument was nonsensical from the outset, and it has fared poorly in courts (see, e.g., the Dyroff ruling), but it does make a sale here with the dissenting judge. Fortunately, the majority absolutely, unequivocally, and persuasively destroys the argument:

We disagree with plaintiffs’ contention that Facebook’s use of algorithms renders it a non‐publisher. First, we find no basis in the ordinary meaning of ‘publisher,’ the other text of Section 230, or decisions interpreting Section 230, for concluding that an interactive computer service is not the ‘publisher’ of third‐party information when it uses tools such as algorithms that are designed to match that information with a consumer’s interests. Indeed, arranging and distributing third‐party information inherently forms “connections” and “matches” among speakers, content, and viewers of content, whether in interactive internet forums or in more traditional media. That is an essential result of publishing. Accepting plaintiffs’ argument would eviscerate Section 230(c)(1); a defendant interactive computer service would be ineligible for Section 230(c)(1) immunity by virtue of simply organizing and displaying content exclusively provided by third parties.

Plaintiffs’ “matchmaking” argument would also deny immunity for the editorial decisions regarding third‐party content that interactive computer services have made since the early days of the Internet. The services have always decided, for example, where on their sites (or other digital property) particular third‐party content should reside and to whom it should be shown. Placing certain third‐party content on a homepage, for example, tends to recommend that content to users more than if it were located elsewhere on a website. Internet services have also long been able to target the third‐party content displayed to users based on, among other things, users’ geolocation, language of choice, and registration information. And, of course, the services must also decide what type and format of third‐party content they will display, whether that be a chat forum for classic car lovers, a platform for blogging, a feed of recent articles from news sources frequently visited by the user, a map or directory of local businesses, or a dating service to find romantic partners. All of these decisions, like the decision to host third‐party content in the first place, result in “connections” or “matches” of information and individuals, which would have not occurred but for the internet services’ particular editorial choices regarding the display of third‐ party content….

plaintiffs’ argument that Facebook’s algorithms uniquely form “connections” or “matchmake” is wrong. That, again, has been a fundamental result of publishing third‐party content on the Internet since its beginning….it would turn Section 230(c)(1) upside down to hold that Congress intended that when publishers of third‐party content become especially adept at performing the functions of publishers, they are no longer immunized from civil liability….

plaintiffs argue, in effect, that Facebook’s use of algorithms is outside the scope of publishing because the algorithms automate Facebook’s editorial decision‐making. That argument, too, fails because ‘so long as a third party willingly provides the essential published content, the interactive service provider receives full immunity regardless of the specific edit[orial] or selection process.’

I’m hoping this case heralds the permanent end of the ridiculous algorithms-defeat-230 argument. The majority rebuts every facet of the argument, emphasizing–as it obvious to everyone but Section 230-haters–that deciding what to publish is an editorial function, whether it’s done by people or machines. If you still think the algorithms-defeat-230 argument is credible enough to make in writing–especially in a court filing–I’ll be eager to see how you get around the passages quoted above. Bonne chance!

Facebook Isn’t the Information Content Provider. What does it mean to “develop” content? That issue tortured the Roommates.com case, but this court simplifies things: “we have recognized that a defendant will not be considered to have developed third‐party content unless the defendant directly and ‘materially’ contributed to what made the content itself ‘unlawful.'” Facebook didn’t do anything like this:

Facebook does not edit (or suggest edits) for the content that its users—including Hamas—publish…

Facebook’s algorithms are content ‘neutral’ in the sense that the D.C. Circuit used that term in Marshall’s Locksmith: The algorithms take the information provided by Facebook users and “match” it to other users—again, materially unaltered—based on objective factors applicable to any content, whether it concerns soccer, Picasso, or plumbers. Merely arranging and displaying others’ content to users of Facebook through such algorithms—even if the content is not actively sought by those users—is not enough to hold Facebook responsible as the ‘develop[er]’ or ‘creat[or]’ of that content…

Plaintiffs also argue that Facebook develops Hamas’s content because Facebook’s algorithms make that content more ‘visible,’ ‘available,’ and ‘usable.’ But making information more available is, again, an essential part of traditional publishing; it does not amount to “developing” that information within the meaning of Section 230…

plaintiffs assert that Facebook’s algorithms suggest third‐party content to users ‘based on what Facebook believes will cause the user to use Facebook as much as possible’ and that Facebook intends to ‘influence’ consumers’ responses to that content. This does not describe anything more than Facebook vigorously fulfilling its role as a publisher. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that publishers must have no role in organizing or distributing third‐party content in order to avoid ‘develop[ing]’ that content is both ungrounded in the text of Section 230 and contrary to its purpose….

plaintiffs also argue that Facebook should not be afforded Section 230 immunity because Facebook has chosen to undertake efforts to eliminate objectionable and dangerous content but has not been effective or consistent in those efforts. However, again, one of the purposes of Section 230 was to ensure that interactive computer services should not incur liability as developers or creators of third‐party content merely because they undertake such efforts—even if they are not completely effective

In a footnote, the court adds: “We do not mean that Section 230 requires algorithms to treat all types of content the same. To the contrary, Section 230 would plainly allow Facebook’s algorithms to, for example, de‐promote or block content it deemed objectionable.” Suck it, Sen. Cruz!

The court also rejects a bizarre argument by the plaintiff: “Nor does Facebook’s acquiring certain information from users render it a developer for the purposes of Section 230. Facebook requires users to provide only basic identifying information: their names, telephone numbers, and email addresses. In so doing, Facebook acts as a “neutral intermediary.” Moreover, plaintiffs concede in the pleadings that Facebook does not publish that information, and so such content plainly has no bearing on plaintiffs’ claims.”

Section 230 Preempts Civil Claims Based on Federal Crimes. The court agrees with Doe v. Backpage on this point. The dissent also grudgingly agreed, but wrote an odd footnote saying it was a close call.

JASTA Didn’t Repeal Section 230. “JASTA merely expanded Section 2333’s cause of action to secondary liability; it provides no obstacle—explicit or implicit—to applying Section 230.”

Section 230 Can Apply to Extraterritorial Conduct. “The regulated conduct—the litigation of civil claims in federal courts—occurs entirely domestically in its application here.”

Section 230 Supports Motion to Dismiss. “the application of Section 230(c)(1) is appropriate at the pleading stage when, as here, the ‘statute’s barrier to suit is evident from the face of’ plaintiffs’ proposed complaint.” Cites to Ricci and Marshall’s Locksmith.

The Dissent

The dissenting judge does not agree with the majority’s Section 230 conclusions. To illustrate why, he uses an analogy involving telephone call conversations and says it doesn’t make sense to characterize the conversationalists as “publishers.” Huh? First, the capacious definition of “publish” in common law defamation does, in fact, apply to phone calls. More importantly, as the majority points out, telephone calls aren’t covered by Section 230 because they aren’t on the Internet. So by invoking an offline analogy, I assume the dissenting judge is normatively resisting Section 230’s exceptionalism.

The dissent reviews Section 230’s legislative history at some length. He concludes that Section 230 was only meant to suppress indecent material online from kids. He says, “we today extend a provision that was designed to encourage computer service providers to shield minors from obscene material so that it now immunizes those same providers for allegedly connecting terrorists to one another….The text and legislative history of the statute shout to the rafters Congress’s focus on reducing children’s access to adult material.”

With that inaccurately narrow characterization of Congress’ goals, the dissent denigrates Section 230: “Congress grabbed a bazooka to swat the Stratton‐Oakmont fly.” Whoa.

(This is also historically wrong–the Stratton Oakmont ruling wasn’t a fly; it actually was a metaphorical bazooka that threatened to blow up the Internet).

On the “merits” of Facebook’s Section 230 defense, the dissent says: “When a plaintiff brings a claim that is based not on the content of the information shown but rather on the connections Facebook’s algorithms make between individuals, the CDA does not and should not bar relief.” Huh? What exactly are those “connections” doing, other than publishing content between users? Though the dissent doesn’t use the terms, implicitly the dissent buys into the platform vs. publisher distinction. To the dissent, when Facebook is enabling community engagement, it’s apparently functioning as a platform, not a publisher. “Facebook is telling users—perhaps implicitly, but clearly—that they would like these people, groups, or events….Facebook may be immune under the CDA from plaintiffs’ challenge to its allowance of Hamas accounts, since Facebook acts solely as the publisher of the Hamas users’ content. That does not mean, though, that it is also immune when it conducts statistical analyses of that information and delivers a message based on those analyses…the creation of social networks goes far beyond the traditional editorial functions that the CDA immunizes.”

The platform v. publisher distinction is irrelevant to Section 230. As the majority clearly and emphatically points out, every function denigrated by the dissent is an intrinsic part of Facebook’s publication process. It’s like how a newspaper puts some articles on the front page with huge headlines and other content buried in the last section with a small headline. Then newspaper is implicitly saying “you’ll like some stories more than the others” based on its editorial decision-making. So is Facebook.

The dissent ends with about a dozen pages recapping random gripes about Facebook’s sins. Your honor, do you Facebook much?

I did agree with the dissent on one key point. He says: “Section 230(c)(1) limits liability based on the function the defendant performs, not its identity. Accordingly, our precedent does not grant publishers CDA immunity for the full range of activities in which they might engage.” I agree 100%, but that’s rebutting a strawman argument, no? The judge seems to be saying that Section 230 doesn’t create a lawless no-man’s land, which no one ever actually claims. The real point, as made by the majority opinion in this case and many other rulings, is that Section 230 applies to the publication function regardless of how plaintiffs try to obfuscate the facts by referring to publication functions by some other name.

Some Implications

Will There Be En Banc Review? A deep panel split like this can lay the foundation for en banc review. But in light of the emphatic Herrick v. Grindr pro-Section 230 ruling earlier this year, I wonder if any other Second Circuit judges would rally behind Judge Katzmann’s dissent? I think that’s unlikely.

No Reference to Causation. The opinion relies solely on Section 230. It doesn’t reference the causation issue at all. That makes this case an outlier. A couple other rulings in the “material support for terrorists” line of cases have relied on Section 230, but most have disposed of the claims on the statutory prima facie elements or for lack of proximate causation. In fact, the other two appellate rulings in this line of cases both relied exclusively on the proximate causation doctrine to dismiss the cases. So this ruling supplements those rulings by highlighting that Section 230 can be a separate and independent ground for dismissal.

“Material Support for Terrorist” Lawsuits Are Doomed. I now count 11 different courts that have rejected claims that social media providers materially contribute to terrorists, and that now includes three appellate courts (also Fields v. Twitter in the 9th Circuit and Crosby v. Twitter in the 6th Circuit). I have no idea how many more cases are pending in the system, and it wouldn’t surprise me if plaintiffs’ lawyers keep filing more suits against social media providers despite this impressive record of futility. Nevertheless, all of these cases are doomed, and the growing wall of precedent seems insurmountable now. Will a 12th judge really decide to reject the conclusions of the prior 11 judges? Will the fourth appellate court really decide to go against the conclusions of the prior 3? Anything is possible, and as the dissenting judge illustrated, these cases can provoke passionate responses. Still, I think the precedent is so large, and so uniform, that the odds of future plaintiff wins have become vanishingly small.

Section 230 Keeps Rolling in Courts. It’s been a bad year for Section 230 cases and online marketplaces, including HomeAway v. Santa Monica, Oberdorf v. Amazon, and State Farm v. Amazon. In all other respects, 2019 has been very kind to Section 230 defendants. A string of appellate court rulings in 2019 (including Herrick v. Grindr, Marshall’s Locksmith v. Google, Daniel v. Armslist, and this case) have used broad and sweeping pro-defense language, and many lower court opinions have been similarly favorable. Of course, all of that is likely to be squashed with Congress’ next amendment to Section 230.

Will This Ruling Contribute to Pressure to Amend Section 230? Congress remains concerned about terrorist content online, even though the social media providers have taken major–and anti-free-speech–steps to reduce that content, including the deployment of GIFCT. So there is already plenty of evidence that the social media providers are working to curb terrorist content despite the providers’ lack of legal liability. I think we’d all agree that the services have more work to do–especially to unradicalize the domestic terrorists who are murdering children after being emboldened by the racist/anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim/anti-Semitic rhetoric emanating from our own government.

Still, Congress could be concerned about ensuring financial recompense to terrorist victims. So the issue of terrorist content online creates another friction point with Section 230. However, let me point out the obvious: amending Section 230 won’t change the result in these cases because, as I indicated, the cases usually fail on statutory or proximate causation grounds, not Section 230. Congress would need to fix all of those issues–if it can–while avoided the obvious First Amendment problems before it could find a way to turn social media providers into financial insurers for terrorist victims. In other words, though Section 230 may look like it curbs lawsuits by terrorist victims, it really isn’t the barrier.

Case citation: Force v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18‐397 (2d Cir. July 31, 2019)

Prior Blog Posts:

* Eleventh Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Palmucci v. Twitter * Another Appellate Court Rejects “Material Support for Terrorist” Claims Against Social Media Platforms–Crosby v. Twitter * Tenth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Sinclair v. Twitter * Ninth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Clayborn v. Twitter * Eighth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Copeland v. Twitter * Seventh Different Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Material Support to Terrorists” Fails–Taamneh v. Twitter * Another Social Media “Material Support to Terrorists” Lawsuit Fails–Cain v. Twitter * “Material Support for Terrorists” Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails Again–Gonzalez v. Google * Fifth Court Rejects ‘Material Support for Terrorism’ Claims Against Social Media Sites–Crosby v. Twitter * Twitter Didn’t Cause ISIS-Inspired Terrorism–Fields v. Twitter * Section 230 Again Preempts Suit Against Facebook for Supporting Terrorists–Force v. Facebook * Fourth Judge Says Social Media Sites Aren’t Liable for Supporting Terrorists–Pennie v. Twitter * Another Court Rejects ‘Material Support To Terrorists’ Claims Against Social Media Sites–Gonzalez v. Google * Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Material Support for Terrorists–Cohen v. Facebook * Twitter Defeats ISIS “Material Support” Lawsuit Again–Fields v. Twitter * Section 230 Immunizes Twitter From Liability For ISIS’s Terrorist Activities–Fields v. Twitter

The post Second Circuit Issues Powerful Section 230 Win to Facebook in “Material Support for Terrorists” Case–Force v. Facebook appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Second Circuit Issues Powerful Section 230 Win to Facebook in “Material Support for Terrorists” Case–Force v. Facebook published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.weebly.com/

0 notes

skowhegan · 7 years ago

Photo

Alejandro T. Acierto (’14) in the absence of sight (SCENE) Metrospace @ Michigan State University 110 Charles St East Lansing, MI 48824

January 19 – March 10, 2018

6 notes · View notes

adultkidslessons-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Best and Free Penny Stocks Alerts to Trade

Offer Best and Free Penny Stocks Alerts to Trade The shares you really have been reading about here are ones which are costly to put money into. You do not have to stick with these expensive stocks. You have the choice to choose best and free penny stocks alarms. Penny stocks are stocks from companies which trade at very low prices. The SEC says that a penny stock has a value of less than $5 per share and would not be listed on a few of the major exchanges. On the surface, penny stocks sound interesting because of how inexpensive they are. At the same time, these stocks are risky and tough to work with since it's impossible to determine where they might go when you exchange them. There are some things you can do in order to exchange them successfully with our Penny Stock Alerts.

What's a Penny Stock? A penny stock is a stock that has quite a small market cap. Along with having stocks less than $5 per cent, the market cap of the business is roughly $50 million to $300 million in value and isn't necessarily a globally recognized group. The inventory is also trading in some smaller markets. That is, the transactions are managed between parties with no exchange. The most noteworthy feature of penny stocks is they have very smaller values. Some of these stocks have a higher prospect of gain through our penny stock alert service. As an instance, the small real estate company Metrospaces transactions within an OTC stock under the MSPC symbol. Not many penny stocks are that cheap. Potnetwork Holdings, another OTC inventory with the POTN symbol, is an inventory of a firm dedicated to hemp merchandise. The company has a stock that's been trading for much of 2018 at around 50 cents per share. The general thing about penny stocks is that they are extremely cheap. However, as you'll read next, these stocks are incredibly risky. Serious Threats Difficult to PrepareTrades Many investment agents won't work with penny stocks with the belief they are overly risky and hard to recognize. They may also struggle with intending orders as a result of markets involved being slower than the significant ones. There is also the worry about what happens when a single trade shifts the value of this stock. No Real Standards Although many stocks have strong standards for the way they should be traded, you are not likely to obtain those penny stocks. A stock like this doesn't have to fulfill any substantial standards to get onto an exchange. An OTC penny stock does not have to file information with the SEC. The OTCBB does ask that the shares that it lists do record documents with the SEC, but this isn't always a requirement. You can still assess the SEC to determine whether a stock that you want to invest in has proper filings, but that may be hard to discover. Hard to Find Information The following issue surrounding OTC penny stocks is that you might not get enough information on what is available. You are not likely to find much info on penny stocks because news bureaus are not likely to report on these. All these companies are too little for a number of those news agencies to actually take seriously. You may read information on about penny stock suggestions to check out for example stocks that might be intriguing that people put money into. These reports are often created with heavily biased advice by those who have positions in those stocks. They may also supply you with names and logos but not enough information about what you could expect to understand from these stocks. This makes it tougher for you to actually get the details which you want. What's even worse is these stocks aren't easy to get access to via a website. If you attempted to type in"OTC stock estimates" on a search box, you might just come across a bunch of websites that record details on these quotations. This just makes penny stocks more unreliable due to the lack of available information in this process. Have you ever noticed cases where the worth of a penny stock has experienced a dramatic change in a really brief time? It then went down to $0.0003 within just a day and eventually to $0.0002. What if you had a million stocks in RCMH now? You might have bought them as soon as the stock was 0.0008 together with the belief that the stock would continue increasing. As that stock drops back to $0.0003, you'd have dropped $500 on your investment. Simply put, you went with the belief that the stock would keep on rising in value, but stock actually bottomed out. This RCMH stock may have increased in value because one individual made a huge trade in that stock. That individual may have purchased 10 million or more shares in RCMH and then sold them off in a couple of hours or days following the inventory saw a sizable increase. Worse, that person may be someone from within the business. This is a legitimate problem for penny stocks that a lot of men and women fail to consider. In fact, this frequently occurs with stocks that are not too liquid. A stock that has no liquidity is not going to change much in value unless one individual managed to devote a massive order and get a large number of stocks sold or bought all at once. Pumping and Dumping The pump and dump strategy is a related issue that penny stock alerts frequently struggle with. Although It Isn't illegal, it certainly feels like it ought to be because it directly impacts the value of a penny stock and is often done by someone from within the business, such as: 1. A person buys a high number of stocks in a stock. This is usually for penny stocks, although it could theoretically occur at any stock. The shortage of volume of many penny stocks makes them likely to be targeted by pump and dump schemes. They are much easier to manipulate. 2. That person then tries to promote a stock by offering false or potentially misleading statements regarding the stock's capacity to grow. In the past, this has been done through cold calling methods by phone. Nowadays, individuals are able to visit social media or set up their own sites to promote those stocks. 3. Folks then fall for all these statements and purchase the stock. The people who choose to buy these stocks are usually inclined to spend in them without thinking twice. They might be emotionally pressured into buying these stocks rather than investigating the business thoroughly. 4. After enough men and women buy the shares in question, the person who started the scheme will sell off his shares as that individual will have made enough money from the people purchasing the stock. 5. We offer the very Best Penny Stock Alert Service. We offer a 7 day trial so that you can see for yourself whether these alerts work for you. We've already more than double our money in the months. We think you'll be quite happy with our service.

0 notes

amin740-posts-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Penny Stock Alerts

Offer Best and Free Penny Stocks Alerts to Trade

The shares you really have been reading about here are ones that are costly to invest in. You do not have to stay with these expensive stocks. You have the option to select best and completely free penny stocks alarms. On the surface, penny stocks seem interesting because of how inexpensive they are. At exactly the same time, these stocks are risky and tough to work with because it is not possible to determine where they may go when you exchange them. There are some things you can do to trade them successfully with our Penny Stock Alerts}.

What's a Penny Stock?

A penny stock is a stock which has a very small market cap. In addition to having stocks less than $5 each, the market cap of the business is around $50 million to $300 million in value and isn't necessarily a worldwide recognized group. The stock can be trading in some smaller markets. That is, the trades are managed between parties without an exchange. The most noteworthy feature of penny stocks is they have very smaller values.

As an example, the small real estate firm Metrospaces trades within an OTC stock under the MSPC symbol. At the beginning of 2018, Metrospaces was trading at $0.0001 per share. Not all penny stocks really are that cheap. Potnetwork Holdings, yet another OTC stock with the POTN emblem, is an inventory of a firm devoted to hemp products. The business has a stock that's been investing for much of 2018 at around 50 cents per share.

The overall thing about penny stocks is that they are extremely cheap. However, since you'll read next, these stocks are extremely risky.

Serious Risks

Difficult to PrepareTrades

Many investment brokers won't utilize penny stocks together with the belief that they are overly risky and difficult to identify. They might also struggle with planning orders as a result of economies involved being slower than the major ones. There's also the worry about what occurs when a single trade changes the value of this stock.

No Real Standards

Although a lot of stocks have strong standards for how they should be traded, you aren't going to find those penny stocks. A stock such as this does not need to meet any substantial standards to become onto a market. An OTC penny stock doesn't need to file information with the SEC. The OTCBB does ask that the stocks which it lists do record documents with the SEC, but this is not necessarily a requirement. You can still check the SEC to determine if a stock that you need to purchase has proper filings, however that may be hard to find.

Hard to Find Information

The following difficulty surrounding OTC penny stocks is that you might not get enough details on what's available. You're not likely to find much info on penny stocks because news agencies aren't going to report on them. All these organizations are too little for some of those news agencies to actually take seriously.

You might read advice on about penny stock suggestions to check out for example stocks which may be intriguing for people to invest in. These reports are often created with heavily biased information by those who have places in these stocks. They may also supply you with names and logos but not enough info about what you can expect to realize from these stocks. This makes it harder for you to really get the details that you need. What is even worse is that these stocks are not easy to get access to through a website. If you attempted to type in"OTC stock estimates" on a search box, then you could just come across a bunch of websites that list details on such quotes. This only makes penny stocks more unreliable due to the lack of accessible information in this process.

Easy to Inflate or Adjust

Perhaps you have noticed cases where the value of a penny stock has undergone a dramatic shift in a really brief time? It then went back down to $0.0003 within just a day and finally to $0.0002.

What if you had a thousand stocks in RCMH now? You may have bought them when the stock was 0.0008 together with the belief that the inventory would keep on increasing. You'd have spent $800 on the inventory. As that stock drops back to $0.0003, you would have dropped $500 in your investment. In other words, you went with the belief that the stock would continue rising in value, but stock really bottomed out.

That RCMH stock might have increased in value because one person made a huge trade in that inventory. That individual might have purchased 10 million or more stocks in RCMH and then sold them off in a few hours or days following the inventory saw a sizable increase. Worse, that person may be someone from inside the company. This is a legitimate problem for penny stocks that a lot of men and women don't think about. It only takes one individual to inflate or deflate the value of a stock. In reality, this frequently happens with stocks that aren't too liquid. A stock that has no liquidity isn't likely to change considerably in value unless one individual managed to put in a massive order and get a large number of stocks sold or purchased all at once.

Pumping and Dumping

The pump and dump plan is a related problem that penny stock alerts often struggle with.

1. A individual buys a large number of stocks in a stock. This is often for penny stocks, though it might theoretically occur at any stock. The shortage of volume of several penny stocks makes them even more likely to be targeted by pump and dump schemes. They are much simpler to manipulate.

2. That person then tries to market a stock by providing false or potentially misleading statements regarding the stock's ability to grow. In the past, this was done through cold calling techniques by telephone. Nowadays, people are able to go to social media or set up their own blogs to market these stocks.

3. People then fall for all these statements and purchase the stock. The people who choose to buy these stocks are usually willing to invest in them without even thinking twice. They might be emotionally pressured into investing in these stocks rather than investigating the company thoroughly.

4. After enough people buy the stocks in question, the individual who started the strategy will sell off his shares as that person will have made enough money from the people buying the stock.

5. The people who dropped for the pump and dump scheme could lose hundreds or even thousands of dollars from using this trick. The troubles with the pump and dump scheme are very important.

We provide the Best Penny Stock Alert Service. Please try us out. We offer a 7 day trial so that you can see for yourself whether these alarms work for you. We have more than double our money from the 6 months. We think you'll be quite pleased with our service.

0 notes

rizajoyhara-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Free penny stock alert

https://tradestockalerts.com/penny-stocks-watch-list

Offer Free and Best Penny Stocks Alerts to Trade

The shares you really have been reading about here are those that are costly to put money into. You don't have to stay with these expensive stocks. You have the option to select best and completely free penny stocks alerts. Penny stocks are stocks from companies that trade at very low prices. On the surface, penny stocks sound interesting as to how inexpensive they are. At exactly the exact same time, these stocks are insecure and tough to work with since it's impossible to determine where they might go when you exchange them. There are a number of things you can do to trade them successfully using our Penny Stock Alerts}.

What's a Penny Stock?

A penny stock is a stock that has quite a modest market cap. The inventory can be trading in some smaller markets. In other words, the transactions are handled between parties without an exchange. The OTC Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets both list information on these penny stocks have been organized. The most noteworthy feature of penny stocks is that they have very small values. Some of these stocks have a high chance of gain through our penny stock alert service.

For instance, the tiny property firm Metrospaces trades within an OTC stock under the MSPC emblem. Not many penny stocks are that cheap. Potnetwork Holdings, yet another OTC stock with all the POTN symbol, is a stock of a firm devoted to hemp merchandise. The company has a stock that has been investing for much of 2018 at around 50 cents per share.

The overall thing about penny stocks is they are extremely cheap. However, since you'll read next, these stocks are extremely risky.

Serious Risks

Difficult to PrepareTrades

Many investment brokers won't utilize penny stocks together with the belief that they are overly risky and difficult to identify. They might also struggle with planning orders due to the markets involved being slower than the major ones. There's also the worry about what occurs when a single trade changes the value of the stock.

No Real Standards

Although a lot of stocks have powerful standards for the way they should be traded, you aren't likely to obtain those penny stocks. A stock like this doesn't have to fulfill any substantial criteria to become on an exchange. The OTCBB does ask that the stocks which it lists do record documents with the SEC, but this isn't necessarily a requirement. You can still assess the SEC to determine if a stock that you need to purchase has appropriate filings, but that could be difficult to find.

Hard to Find Info

The next difficulty surrounding OTC penny stocks is that you might not get enough information on what's available. You're not likely to find much info on penny stocks because information agencies aren't likely to report on them. These companies are too small for a number of these news agencies to really take seriously.

You may read advice on about penny stock tips to check out for example stocks that might be intriguing for people to invest in. Those reports are often created with heavily biased information by people who have positions in these shares. They may also give you names and symbols but not enough info about what you can expect to realize from these shares. This makes it harder for you to really get the details which you want. What's even worse is that these stocks are not simple to get access to through a site. If you attempted to type in"OTC stock estimates" on a search box, you could just come across a bunch of blogs that list details on these quotes. This only makes penny stocks more unreliable as a result of shortage of available data in this process.

Have you ever seen cases where the worth of a penny stock has undergone a dramatic shift in a very short moment? It then went back down to $0.0003 within just a day and finally to $0.0002.

Imagine if you had a million shares in RCMH at this point? You might have purchased them when the inventory was $0.0008 together with the impression that the inventory would continue rising. As that inventory drops back to $0.0003, you'd have lost $500 in your investment. In other words, you went with the belief that the stock would keep on rising in value, but that stock really bottomed out.

This RCMH inventory may have increased in value because one individual made a massive trade in that inventory. That individual might have bought 10 million or more shares in RCMH and then sold them off in a couple of hours or days following the stock saw a sizable increase. Worse, that person might be someone from within the company. This is a legitimate problem for penny stocks that many men and women fail to think about. In reality, this often occurs with stocks which aren't too liquid. A stock that has no liquidity is not likely to change much in value unless one person managed to put in a huge order and get a sizable number of stocks sold or bought all at one time.

Pumping and Dumping

The pump and ditch plan is a related problem that penny stock alerts frequently struggle with. Although It Isn't illegal, it certainly feels like it should be because it directly manipulates the value of a penny stock and is often done by someone from within the business, for example:

1. A person buys a large number of stocks in a stockexchange. This is usually for penny stocks, although it could theoretically happen with any stock. The shortage of quantity of several penny stocks makes them even more likely to be targeted by pump and dump schemes. They are much simpler to manipulate.

2. That person then tries to market a stock by offering false or possibly misleading statements about the stock's ability to grow. In the past, this has been done through cold calling techniques by telephone. Today, individuals can go to social media or put up their own blogs to market those stocks.

3. People then fall for these statements and purchase the stock. The men and women who opt to buy these stocks are often inclined to invest in them without even thinking twice. They might be emotionally driven into investing in these stocks and not exploring the company thoroughly.

4. After enough people buy the shares in question, the individual who started the scheme will sell off his shares as that person will have made enough money from the people buying the stock.

We offer the Best Penny Stock Alert Service. Please try us out. We offer a 7 day trial so you can see for yourself whether these alerts work for you. We have more than double our money from the 6 months. We believe you will be very happy with our services.

https://tradestockalerts.com/penny-stocks-watch-list

0 notes

pennystockalerts31-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Free Penny Stock Alerts

The shares you really have been reading about here are ones which are expensive to invest in. You don't have to stick with those expensive stocks. You have the option to choose best and completely free penny stocks alerts. The SEC states that a penny stock has a value of less than $5 per share and would not be recorded on a few of the major exchanges. On the outside, penny stocks seem interesting because of how cheap they are. At the exact same time, these stocks are risky and hard to work with because it is impossible to determine where they might go when you exchange them. There are some things you can do in order to trade them successfully using our Penny Stock Alerts.

What's a Penny Stock?

A penny stock is a stock that has quite a modest market cap. The inventory can be trading in certain smaller markets. In the United States, penny stocks are traded over the counter. In other words, the trades are handled between parties with no exchange. The OTC Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets both list information on how these penny stocks have been organized. The most noteworthy feature of penny stocks is they have very small values. Some of these stocks have a high prospect of profit through our penny stock alert service.

As an example, the tiny real estate company Metrospaces transactions as an OTC stock under the MSPC symbol. At the start of 2018, Metrospaces was trading at $0.0001 per share. Not many penny stocks are that cheap. Potnetwork Holdings, yet another OTC inventory with the POTN emblem, is a stock of a firm devoted to hemp products. The company has a stock that has been investing for much of 2018 at around 50 cents per share.

The overall thing about penny stocks is that they are very affordable. However, since you'll read next, these stocks are incredibly risky.

Serious Risks

Hard to PrepareTrades

Many investment agents won't utilize penny stocks with the belief that they are overly risky and difficult to identify. They might also struggle with planning orders due to the markets involved being slower than the major ones. There is also the worry about what happens when a single trade shifts the value of the inventory.

No Real Standards

Though many stocks have strong standards for the way they should be traded, you are not likely to find these penny stocks. A stock such as this does not need to fulfill any significant standards to get onto an exchange. The OTCBB does request that the shares that it lists do file documents with the SEC, but this isn't always a requirement. It's still possible to check the SEC to see whether a stock that you want to purchase has appropriate filings, but that could be difficult to find.

Difficult to Find Info

The following difficulty surrounding OTC penny stocks is that you might not get enough details on what is available. You're not going to find much info on penny stocks since news bureaus are not likely to report on them. All these companies are too small for a number of these news agencies to actually take seriously.

You may read advice on about penny stock tips to check out including stocks that might be intriguing that people invest in. These reports are often created with heavily biased advice by people who have positions in those stocks. They may also supply you with names and logos but not enough info about what you could expect to understand from these stocks. This makes it harder for you to really get the details which you want. What is even worse is that these stocks are not easy to get access to through a website. If you attempted to type in"OTC stock estimates" on an internet search box, then you might just encounter a lot of blogs that record details on these quotes. This only makes penny stocks more unreliable as a result of shortage of accessible data in this procedure.

Easy to Inflate or Adjust

Have you ever seen cases where the value of a penny stock has undergone a dramatic shift in a very brief time? For instance, in February 2018, Reach Messaging Holdings, an OTC stock under the RCMH ticker, experienced a substantial bulge in its value that was very short-lived. The stock had a value of $0.0003, but it soon moved up to $0.0008. It then went back down to $0.0003 within just a day and eventually to $0.0002.

Imagine if you had a thousand stocks in RCMH now? You may have purchased them as soon as the inventory was 0.0008 together with the belief that the stock would continue rising. You would have spent $800 on the inventory. As that stock drops back to $0.0003, you'd have dropped $500 on your investment. Simply put, you went with the belief that the inventory would keep on increasing in value, but that stock actually bottomed out.

That RCMH inventory may have increased in value because one person made a massive trade in that stock. That individual might have purchased 10 million or more stocks in RCMH and then sold them off in a couple of hours or days after the inventory saw a sizable increase. Worse, that person may be someone from within the company. This is a valid issue for penny stocks that many men and women don't consider. It just takes one individual to inflate or deflate the value of a stockexchange. In fact, this frequently happens with stocks which are not too liquid. A stock without any liquidity is not likely to change considerably in value unless one individual managed to devote a huge order and find a large number of shares sold or purchased all at one time.

Pumping and Dumping

The pump and dump strategy is a related problem that penny stock alarms often struggle with. Although It Isn't illegal, it certainly feels as though it should be because it directly impacts the worth of a penny stock and is often done by someone from within the business, for example:

A person buys a high number of stocks in a stock. This is usually for penny stocks, though it could theoretically occur with any stock. The lack of volume of several penny stocks makes them even likely to be targeted by pump and dump schemes. They are much simpler to manipulate.

That individual then tries to market a stock by providing false or potentially misleading statements regarding the stock's capacity to grow. In the past, this has been done through cold calling techniques by telephone. Today, people are able to go to social media or put up their own sites to market those shares.

Folks then fall for all these statements and buy the stock. The people who opt to purchase these stocks are usually willing to spend in them without even thinking twice. They might be emotionally pressured into buying these stocks rather than investigating the business thoroughly.

After enough people buy the shares in question, the person who started the scheme will sell his shares off as that individual will have made enough money from the people buying the stock.

The men and women who dropped for the pump and dump scheme could lose hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars from using this trick.

We provide the Best Penny Stock Alert Service. We provide a 7 day trial so you can see for yourself if these alerts work for you. We've already more than double our money in the months. We think you'll be very happy with our service.

0 notes