Tag: social

Bondi Bragged About Forcing Facebook To Censor Speech. Now FIRE Is Suing.

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 20:16:26 +0000

I seem to recall a years-long freakout among MAGA folks about the Biden administration pressuring social media companies to remove content. You may have heard about it.

Anyway. In unrelated news FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), has filed suit against Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on behalf of Kassandra Rosado, who ran a 100,000-member Facebook group called “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland,” and Mark Hodges, who created the Eyes Up app for documenting and archiving videos of ICE enforcement activity.

The suit alleges that Bondi and Noem coerced Facebook into disabling the group and coerced Apple into pulling the app from its App Store, in direct violation of the First Amendment. Because, you know, government officials calling social media companies and demanding they remove content is… bad.

The legal theory is straightforward, the evidence is overwhelming, and perhaps most remarkably, the government handed FIRE much of its case on a silver platter. In other words, for all the talk of “censorship” during the Biden admin, which went nowhere due to the lack of any actual evidence, here there not only is evidence, it was eagerly and readily provided by Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem themselves. In public. Repeatedly. Proudly.

Let’s start with the basics of what actually happened, because the facts here are almost embarrassingly damning. Kassandra Rosado created her Facebook group in January 2025, initially as a small community resource for Chicago-area small business owners trying to understand how ICE raids were affecting foot traffic and community events. The group grew to nearly 100,000 members by October as ICE enforcement escalated under what the agency publicly branded “Operation Midway Blitz.” According to the complaint, Facebook’s own moderators reviewed thousands of posts and found exactly five that violated its guidelines. Just five. Which Facebook removed, telling Rosado that participants acting badly don’t impact the group themselves (a good policy!).

Out of thousands of posts and tens of thousands of comments that members of the Chicagoland group created through October 2025, Facebook’s own moderators found and removed only five purportedly violating its guidelines.

Even as to these five posts, Facebook advised Rosado that they were “participant violations” that “don’t hurt your group.” Facebook further explained: “Groups aren’t penalized when members or visitors break the rules without admin approval.”

Then, on October 12, 2025, Laura Loomer tagged Noem and Bondi in a social media post flagging the group. Loomer’s role here deserves a moment of appreciation. This is a person who sued Facebook, claiming it was literally RICO to moderate her posts. Who sued all the major tech companies, arguing that content moderation violated her First Amendment rights. Her entire public identity has been built on the premise that private platforms moderating her speech is unconstitutional censorship.

And here she is, tagging federal officials to demand they force Facebook to suppress other people’s speech. The First Amendment, which constrains government action, apparently only matters when Loomer is the one being moderated. When she wants someone else silenced, she calls in the actual state.

The next day, a DOJ source confirmed to Loomer that DOJ had contacted Facebook to demand removal.

That same day, Facebook disabled the entire group. Then Bondi posted on social media claiming credit:

That’s the AG admitting to a pretty clear First Amendment violation. Not in a leaked email discovered through litigation. Not in a deposition. On X, taking credit. Proudly.

Today following outreach from @thejusticedept, Facebook removed a large group page that was being used to dox and target @ICEgov agents in Chicago.

…. The Department of Justice will continue engaging tech companies to eliminate platforms where radicals can incite imminent violence against federal law enforcement.

Noem piled on with her own post, crediting the DOJ for the takedown.

That’s the Secretary of Homeland Security saying:

Anti-ICE radicals are using social media apps to dox, threaten, and terrorize the brave men and women of ICE and their families.

Today, thanks to @POTUS Trump’s @TheJusticeDept under the leadership of @AGPamBondi, Facebook removed a large page being used to dox and threaten our ICE agents in Chicago.

These officers risk their lives every day arresting murderers, rapists, and gang members to protect our homeland. Platforms like Facebook must be PROACTIVE in stopping the doxxing of our @ICEgov law enforcement.

We will prosecute those who dox our agents to the fullest extent of the law.

The Eyes Up situation is even more instructive. Mark Hodges built Eyes Up specifically as a documentation and archiving tool for videos of ICE enforcement activity. The app uses manual moderation—meaning Hodges or other moderators personally review every video before it becomes publicly accessible.

The complaint specifically notes that:

Eyes Up is not useful for tracking ICE location or movement in real time. Because Hodges or other moderators manually review each video before it becomes publicly available, any ICE officers would be long gone by the time a video is posted.

Apple had independently reviewed and approved Eyes Up for the App Store in August 2025, raising no concerns about the content. On October 3, Apple removed it anyway—citing “information provided by law enforcement” that the app violated its guidelines on “Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content.”

Bondi again made no effort to be subtle about DOJ’s role, gleefully telling Fox News:

“We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so.”

She later boasted at a roundtable that:

“We had Apple and Google take down the ICEBlock apps.”

For years, MAGA world has treated Murthy v. Missouri as a foundational text of government overreach—proof that the Biden administration ran a sophisticated censorship operation by pressuring social media companies to remove content. Jim Jordan convened hearings. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, though MAGA folks love to ignore or downplay what the Supreme Court decision actually said about the case. The argument, reduced to its essence, was that White House officials sending emails asking platforms to review posts against their existing policies constituted unconstitutional “jawboning.”

The Supreme Court threw the case out because the plaintiffs couldn’t prove that the government’s communications actually caused the platforms to take action. The majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett found that the platforms were making their own independent decisions, often rejecting the government’s requests, and that the plaintiffs couldn’t trace any specific content removal directly to government coercion. The evidence, the Court concluded, just wasn’t there. Barrett’s opinion uses the phrase “no evidence” five times. And the little evidence plaintiffs did offer? She called it out as “unfortunately appear[ing] to be clearly erroneous.”

Bondi and Noem have now done something remarkable: they have provided, entirely on their own initiative and through public statements made to friendly media outlets, every single piece of evidence that was missing in Murthy.

Traceability? Bondi literally said “We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app—and Apple did so.” Coercion versus mere persuasion? The complaint details how Noem announced she was “working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute” app developers, how Bondi told Fox News that ICEBlock’s creator “better watch out” because the speech was “not protected,” and how these explicit criminal threats preceded the removals.

The NRA v. Vullo standard, which the Supreme Court articulated just before the Murthy ruling (on a case they heard the same day as Murthy), holds clearly that a government official cannot use “the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression” through third-party intermediaries. The complaint quotes this directly. There is no ambiguity here about what happened or who caused it.

In Murthy, investigators spent years poring over internal communications trying to find proof that the government’s requests had actually caused the platforms to act. And found nothing concrete. Here, the government’s own press releases and Fox News appearances serve that function. You don’t need subpoenas or discovery depositions when the Attorney General is posting on X to take credit.

The complaint captures the legal significance:

Attorney General Pamela Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem want to control what the public can see, hear, or say about ICE operations. Wielding the power of federal criminal law, they coerced Facebook to disable Rosado’s Facebook group and coerced Apple to remove Kreisau Group’s Eyes Up app from its App Store. That’s unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing companies to censor protected speech. NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190–91 (2024) (“[A] government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.”). Without this Court’s intervention, this unconstitutional coercion will continue.

That last line is important as well, because a key piece of Murthy was that to get an injunction, the plaintiffs had to show that these suppression efforts were likely to continue. That wasn’t there in Murthy. But here, we (again) have Noem and Bondi screaming to the heavens that they’re going to keep doing this.

The “officer safety” justification doesn’t survive contact with the actual facts. An app that archives manually reviewed videos of past ICE activity cannot be used to track officers in real time. The complaint notes that Apple had previously approved the app with full knowledge of what it did, then reversed course only after receiving “information from law enforcement”—which appears to mean a phone call from Bondi’s DOJ:

Apple cited its app review guideline 1.1.1, which prohibits “Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups.”

Apple had never previously stated that Eyes Up purportedly violated guideline 1.1.1 or included “Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content.”

In fact, when Apple had independently reviewed Kreisau Group’s application to include Eyes Up in the App Store in August 2025, Apple did not conclude that Eyes Up violated guideline 1.1.1. During that review, Eyes Up was already available on its website, and Apple had full knowledge of the purpose of Eyes Up, of actual videos available on it, and of how it worked (including its location features). Apple flagged some unrelated issues, which Kreisau Group resolved before Apple approved the app. Apple raised no concern that Eyes Up contained “Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited” content in violation of guideline 1.1.1.

This appears to be the exact opposite of the situation in Murthy, where tech companies frequently rejected government requests if they didn’t violate policies. Here, it appears that, under pressure from Bondi, Apple changed its interpretation of the policies in a weak pretext to justify the government-led censorship.

And it was so clearly pretext:

Apple’s transparency reports show that from 2022 to 2024, it almost never removed apps for “Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited” content under guideline 1.1.1. Apple removed only three apps by US-based creators under guideline 1.1.1 in 2022, four apps in 2023, and none in 2024.

Eyes Up was not tracking anyone. It was creating an archive of documented government behavior in public spaces, exactly the kind of activity the First Amendment—and the Seventh Circuit’s precedent in ACLU v. Alvarez—exists to protect.

The viewpoint discrimination point in the complaint is also notable. The government targeted speech that was critical of ICE operations, while ICE itself actively posts on social media about its own enforcement activities, including specific locations and neighborhoods:

Bondi and Noem are not suppressing laudatory speech about ICE’s operations. ICE’s own social media accounts, for example, frequently share videos and photos of ICE arrests and other information indicating where enforcement operations occurred. Bondi and Noem only target such speech, like with Rosado’s Facebook group, that shares information about ICE operations in ways that are critical of those operations or that defendants perceive as such.

The same footage, in the government’s hands, becomes a success story, which make it textbook viewpoint discrimination.

Which brings us back to the political context that makes this so extraordinary to watch.

The people who spent years insisting that Biden’s White House committed the gravest sin against free speech in living memory by asking Twitter to look at some posts about COVID vaccines are, by and large, completely untroubled by Pam Bondi going on Fox News to brag about forcing Apple to remove an app.

The people who elevated Murthy v. Missouri into a constitutional crisis, who convened hearings and issued subpoenas and demanded that the “censorship industrial complex” be dismantled, have found absolutely nothing to say about a case where the Attorney General of the United States explicitly announced that she demanded a tech company remove an application and the company complied within hours.

Their position was, of course, never really about the principle. It was always about which direction the government’s thumb was pressing. When the Biden administration asked platforms to review COVID misinformation posts against their own existing policies—and platforms rejected the vast majority of those requests—that was tyranny.

When Bondi demands Apple remove an app and Apple does it the same day, that’s apparently just law enforcement doing its job.

The lawsuit asks for declaratory relief and injunctions preventing Bondi and Noem from continuing to coerce Apple and Facebook into suppressing this speech.

These irreparable harms will continue absent declaratory and prospective injunctive relief.

At no point have Bondi or Noem backtracked from their position that any involvement in ICE-tracking speech exposes an individual or business to criminal prosecution, nor from their demands that Apple and Facebook suppress such speech.

Accordingly, Bondi and Noem’s threats continue to hang over Apple and Facebook, who would risk adverse government action were they to reinstate Kreisau Group’s app or Rosado’s Facebook group

FIRE’s complaint frames the stakes with appropriate directness:

Our First Amendment right to speak “to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462–63 (1987). Plaintiffs bring this case to preserve our country’s fundamental character as a free nation, asking this Court to protect the basic First Amendment right to share information about our government and its activities.

The MAGA world spent four years constructing an elaborate theory of shadow-government censorship—one that required stretching reality to its breaking point, cherry-picked emails, and ultimately couldn’t survive Supreme Court scrutiny—when the actual government censorship they always claimed to fear was apparently just one phone call from the AG’s office away. They finally got the “coercive jawboning” they warned everyone about. Bondi and Noem are doing it out in the open, on television, and bragging about it in official social media posts.

And the free speech warriors have nothing to say.

Which tells you everything you need to know about what they actually believed all along. The principle was never “the government shouldn’t pressure platforms to remove speech.” The principle was “the government shouldn’t pressure platforms to remove our speech.” Now that the thumb is pressing in the direction they like, the constitutional crisis has mysteriously resolved itself.

Square Ecosystem Nears 1,000 Partners to Fuel Seller Growth

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:56:45 +0000

Global business platform Square continues to expand its partner ecosystem and now has almost 1,000 partners in its Square App Marketplace and its Square Specialists directory, the company said in a Thursday (Feb. 19) press release.

The company’s partners offer tools that sellers can access on the marketplace and integrate with Square to help them optimize their business, according to the release.

The integrations offered by these partners encompass things such as websites, booking apps, social channels, marketplaces, accounting, inventory management, fulfillment, operations, analytics and expert support, the release said.

The Square ecosystem also offers sellers exclusive partner offers, per the release.

Morgan Kuntze, global partnerships lead at Square’s parent company Block, said in the release that these offerings are part of Square’s effort to empower local businesses by providing an ecosystem that is open and interconnected.

“Sellers have the flexibility to choose how they accept payments, reach customers and run their operations,” Kuntze said in the release. “Simultaneously, Square enables our best-in-class partners to innovate, scale and reach millions of engaged businesses. By investing in both sides of this ecosystem, we’ve created a flywheel of shared success that strengthens our end-to-end network.”

Block reported in November that Square’s gross payment volume (GPV) rose 12% year over year in the third quarter, driven by traction in international markets that grew 26% compared to 9% in the United States. The company’s mix is changing, with GPV from mid-market sellers now accounting for 45% of total GPV.

PYMNTS reported at the time that this trend reveals execution against one of Square’s strategies, upmarket expansion, and signals a move away from Square’s original DNA as a small merchant enabler. The company is building a sturdier identity as a business operating platform that intersects commerce, customer relationships and financial services.

In other additions to its platform, Square extended the availability of its conversational AI assistant Square AI to the United Kingdom; expanded its partnership with inventory management reporting system Thrive to help sellers manage their catalog, sales and stock between their in-store and eCommerce platforms; and rolled out AI-powered insights, voice ordering, bitcoin payments and a mobile app for small businesses.

The post Square Ecosystem Nears 1,000 Partners to Fuel Seller Growth appeared first on PYMNTS.com.

Trump Says He’s Just Going To Make Some Shit Up To Justify Nationalizing The Election Process

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:49:53 +0000

Trump couldn’t accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election. So he stood idly by (if you believe his narrative) or urged on (if you believe your own eyes and ears) his supporters to raid the Capitol building to seize the election from the electorate. If that meant killing his own vice president, so be it.

Eventually, Trump left office, replaced by Joe Biden for a whole four years of relative sanity. Then Trump returned to office and immediately pardoned nearly every one of his supporters who had been criminally charged with federal crimes for participating in the January 20th insurrection attempt.

Since then, he and his GOP enablers have been doing everything they can to rig the next election, despite claiming to have been victims of similar election-rigging in 2020. Aggressive gerrymandering has now been superseded by seizures of voting records, attempted prosecutions of Trump’s political enemies, threats to send ICE out to engage in election suppression, and more.

The GOP has a very slim majority at the moment. GOP legislators opting to retire are now derailing pro-MAGA legislation. Democratic opposition is finally showing some signs of life. And California has responded with pro-Dem gerrymandering of its own, limiting the effectiveness of GOP members running for congressional seats.

Now that it’s starting to look like a fair fight out there in the electorate with the mid-term elections approaching, the administration is making a push to seize election power from the states in order to give Trump the congressional majority he needs to keep being as awful as he’s been since his return to office.

President Trump doubled down on his extraordinary call for the Republican Party to “nationalize” voting in the United States, even as the White House tried to walk it back and members of his own party criticized the idea.

Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that he believed the federal government should “get involved” in elections that are riddled with “corruption,” reiterating his position that the federal government should usurp state laws by exerting control over local elections.

If states “can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over,” he said in the Oval Office, accusing several Democratic-run cities of corruption. “Look at some of the places — that horrible corruption on elections — and the federal government should not allow that,” he added. “The federal government should get involved.”

A nationalized election process is just a welcome wagon for autocracy. That’s why it’s never happened before, thanks to the foresight of the founding fathers who definitely weren’t interested in going back to being the subjects of a king, even if the king pretended a captive process was actually a democratic election.

And that’s why it’s being bandied about by this administration — one that clearly doesn’t care what happens to America as long it continues to remain in power. That’s also why Trump isn’t necessarily angling for a full takeover of midterm elections. He just wants to interfere in places where his lackeys have a real chance of losing elections.

During a podcast interview with Dan Bongino, his former deputy F.B.I. director, on Monday, Mr. Trump called for Republican officials to “take over” voting procedures in 15 states, though he did not name them. “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,’” he said. “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

No sentence should ever begin with “during a podcast interview with Dan Bongino” and end with an actual sitting president stating he should be allowed to “take over” the midterm elections in a select number of areas where his supporters aren’t likely to win.

None of this matters to Trump, however. Blessed with a lack of foresight or hindsight, Trump ventured out into the relative safety of his favorite conflict of interest — Truth Social — to ensure Americans that he hasn’t ruled anything out when it comes to actually stealing an election. (h/t Derek Guy and his preservation efforts)

If you can’t see/read the embed, consider yourself blessed. Consider yourself cursed (and feel free to do as much cursing as you feel is necessary) if you choose to read on. Here’s the entirety of Trump’s “it’s coup time baby!” Truth Social post:

The Democrats refuse to vote for Voter I.D., or Citizenship. The reason is very simple — They want to continue to cheat in Elections. This was not what our Founders desired. I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not! Also, the People of our Country are insisting on Citizenship, and No Mail-In Ballots, with exceptions for Military, Disability, Illness, or Travel. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

These are not the words of a well person. These are certainly not the words of anyone you’d want to have the driver’s keys to a nation, much less the access code to an apartment pool.

Someone who thinks the answer to his hostile takeover of the American election process can be justified by “Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted” is the same sort of person who thinks they’re only days away from perfecting a perpetual motion machine or discovering the secret to eternal life.

But while that part of the post may be comically delusional, it’s the next sentence that’s far more worrying. This is the president claiming he will mandate his version of “Voter I.D.” at the polls, whether it’s legal or not.

And it definitely won’t be legal. Almost every effort the administration has made to disenfranchise voters, alter long-standing election rules, and eliminate voters not likely to side with Trump and the GOP has resulted in lawsuits. Very little of this litigation is settled. And what little of it has been settled has resulted in a loss for Trump.

The GOP’s efforts to codify Trump’s baseless voter fraud conspiracy theories haven’t had much more success. What has managed to move forward is largely redundant, but with the added bonus of allowing Trump’s DOJ to prosecute election officials if the administration believes (hallucinates) local officials didn’t do enough (whatever that means) to dissuade non-citizens from voting.

But this is exactly the sort of thing Trump loves, even if he possibly knows there’s no factual basis for the accusations and insinuations he’s making. If his GOP counterparts lose elections during the midterm, he’ll be the first to start mouthing off about immigrants and “illegal” votes. If his boys win, he’ll take credit for the “fair” election. And the conspiracy theories will return to the slow boil until they’re needed in 2028.

Berlin hosts private premiere of ‘Holiguards Saga – The Portal of Force’ with Kevin Spacey and Elvira Paterson

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:27:46 +0000

A private premiere screening of “Holiguards Saga – The Portal of Force,” the pilot installment of the planned Holiguards Saga franchise, was held on February 16 at ASTOR Film Lounge Berlin. The event took place in a closed format with invited industry guests, partners, and media representatives. The screening was organized as a formal black-tie […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Newsmax Didn’t Like Its NewsGuard Rating, So The FTC Attacked NewsGuard, And Now NewsGuard Is Suing

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:25:00 +0000

We’ve written a few times now about how the GOP’s “free speech warriors” have been waging an absolutely absurd campaign against NewsGuard, a company whose entire business model is… expressing opinions about the reliability of news sources. You know, speech. The kind of thing that’s supposed to be protected by that First Amendment thing the GOP pretends to care so much about.

As we noted back in 2024, the entire complaint about NewsGuard boils down to: some conservative news sites got poor ratings, and that made people who relied on those ratings less likely to advertise on those sites. It’s funny how MAGA seems to get so upset about the “marketplace of ideas” when their own ideas get rejected. NewsGuard says “we think this source is unreliable,” advertisers say “okay, we’d rather not be associated with unreliable sources,” and the rated sites get mad about it.

But now the Trump administration’s FTC, led by Chairman Andrew Ferguson, has decided to transform that complaint into an actual government censorship campaign. And NewsGuard, represented by FIRE’s lawyers, is suing to stop it, as first reported in the Washington Post.

The complaint lays out a fairly astonishing abuse of government power. Let’s start with the Civil Investigative Demand (fancy term for a subpoena) the FTC sent to NewsGuard last May. It’s basically a demand for every document the company has ever created or received since its founding in 2018:

The CID requires production of “all documents relating to NewsGuard’s News Reliability Ratings and any other rating[s];” identification of all NewsGuard customers; and essentially all communications from or to NewsGuard.

And it gets worse:

The Specifications go further, demanding all materials about NewsGuard’s work product and methodology, including data sets; all documents about websites and news sources rated; all ratings and reviews issued; all communications regarding ratings; any and all analyses of the effects of NewsGuard’s ratings on advertisers and publishers; and any studies relating to social media or digital advertising

Among its all-inclusive document demands, the CID also requires production of information, materials, and communications relating to NewsGuard’s journalism and reporting, including reporters’ notes and sources.

The FTC is demanding reporters’ notes. From a journalism organization. Because it doesn’t like the opinions that organization expresses. That should be a First Amendment five-alarm fire. I mean, imagine the years of screaming we’d all be subjected to if the Biden admin had demanded reporters’ notes from Fox News.

Oh, and what was the stated basis for this investigation? According to NewsGuard’s complaint, the FTC wouldn’t even tell them, despite it being required by law.

Under the FTC Act, the agency was required to state the specific conduct constituting an alleged violation that is the subject of investigation and the provision of law applicable to such violation. 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1(c)(2). The FTC did not do that in the NewsGuard CID, leaving the company to guess about what the agency alleged was at issue or how it could have anything to do with legitimate enforcement of antitrust or competition laws.

In other words: “we’re investigating you, but we won’t tell you why or what law you allegedly violated.”

Right about here I’ll remind you that when FTC chair Andrew Ferguson applied for the job he promised to “protect freedom of speech” and “end… politically motivated investigations.” Of course, the full quote was “end Lina Khan’s politically motivated investigations”—leaving his own politically motivated investigations as fair game.

NewsGuard tried to work with the FTC for seven months, participating in ten meet-and-confer discussions and producing over 40,000 pages of documents. And what did the FTC do? Kept demanding more, including those customer lists and communications, while refusing to explain what any of this had to do with antitrust law.

Remember, NewsGuard’s share of the “brand safety” market is, according to the complaint, less than 0.1%. The idea that this tiny company is somehow engaged in anticompetitive behavior that requires the FTC to demand every document it’s ever created is absurd on its face.

Then, while NewsGuard was trying to cooperate with the investigation, the FTC was also using its merger review authority to create what amounts to a government blacklist of NewsGuard.

When advertising giants Omnicom and IPG wanted to merge, the FTC conditioned approval on the companies agreeing not to use any service that “reflects viewpoints as to the veracity of news reporting and adherence to journalistic standards or ethics.”

That’s not particularly subtle. That’s a condition specifically designed to prevent Omnicom from doing business with NewsGuard. The complaint notes that the original draft order didn’t quite capture NewsGuard, so Newsmax—yes, the same Newsmax that’s been mad about its poor NewsGuard rating—filed comments urging the FTC to expand the language. And the FTC did exactly that.

Newsmax was not subtle about its aim. Its fourteen-page letter mentioned NewsGuard more than a dozen times. Newsmax echoed Chairman Ferguson’s repeated statements that NewsGuard’s reviews and ratings of news sources based on journalistic standards were “biased” because some conservativeleaning websites and publications scored poorly.

Not content to rely on the official FTC comment process, Newsmax took to the internet to lobby Chairman Ferguson, members of Congress, and the President. In posts on X directed to Chairman Ferguson, Newsmax asserted the FTC’s proposed order was inadequate because it “makes no mention of ‘censorship’ or ‘targeting conservatives’ and ‘[f]ully allows Omnicom to use left-wing NewsGuard.” Newsmax admitted its comments and advocacy to the FTC were specifically targeted at NewsGuard.

[….]

The FTC subsequently issued a revised order removing terms about using third-party services with “political or ideological bias.” Instead, the FTC revised the Consent Order to prohibit the merged Omnicom entity or its ad agencies from using third-party services that evaluate “viewpoints as to the veracity of news reporting” and “adherence to journalistic standards or ethics.”

In its press release announcing the final Consent Order, the FTC stated that it revised the order “in response to public comments.” But the only public comments advocating such censure came from Newsmax and groups it funds…

The complaint notes, somewhat dryly, that First Amendment scholars and free speech organizations had also submitted comments pointing out how the proposed order was unconstitutional. But somehow, Ferguson and the FTC ignored those. The only change they made seemed to be the one Newsmax and friends demanded: the punishment of NewsGuard for its First Amendment-protected speech.

So let’s be clear about what happened here: A news organization that gives ratings to other news organizations gave a bad rating to Newsmax based on its own criteria. (Shocking, I know, given Newsmax’s sterling commitment to journalistic standards.) Newsmax complained to the government. The government then used its regulatory power to (1) launch a burdensome fishing expedition designed to bleed NewsGuard financially, and (2) literally prohibit a major potential customer from doing business with NewsGuard.

This is textbook First Amendment retaliation. The government is using its regulatory power to punish a private company for expressing opinions it disagrees with.

And Chairman Ferguson hasn’t exactly been coy about his intentions. Even before becoming FTC chair, he was publicly stating that the FTC should use its “tremendous array of investigative tools” and “coercive power” to get companies to “Do what we say.” As the complaint notes:

In an April 2025 interview, Chairman Ferguson explained how the FTC could use its “tremendous array of investigative tools” and “coercive power—formal and informal” to demand compliance to its views about supposed online “censorship.” Ferguson laid out a roadmap of the tactics his FTC would ultimately use against NewsGuard: “The regulators can show up, they can audit, they can investigate, they can cost you a lot of money, and the path of least resistance is: ‘Do what we say’.”

And:

Ferguson’s comments are similar to not-so-veiled threats by FCC Chairman Carr about Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night comedy monologue mentioning Charlie Kirk, which the administration found objectionable. Carr stated that ABC and its affiliates had to “find ways to change conduct and take action … on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” and “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

This is the “free speech” party. This is what they mean by free speech: the freedom to agree with them, or face the consequences, brought to you mob-style.

The legal case here seems pretty straightforward. The DC Circuit already ruled last year, in the somewhat similar Media Matters case, that the FTC’s similar investigation of that organization was “a government campaign of retaliation” that was “infringing exercise of their First Amendment rights.” The district court in DC has already granted a preliminary injunction halting the FTC’s investigation of Media Matters.

NewsGuard’s case involves basically the same playbook. Government officials publicly expressed hostility to NewsGuard’s speech. Then they launched an investigation with demands far beyond any legitimate regulatory purpose. Then they used their merger review authority to directly prohibit companies from doing business with NewsGuard.

The Supreme Court was unanimous in the Vullo case in 2024 that government officials can’t “coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” Using merger conditions to blacklist a company because you don’t like its journalism is exactly that.

It’s genuinely good to see NewsGuard fight back here. I’ve been somewhat critical of NewsGuard’s methodology in the past, but their right to express their opinions about news sources is protected speech, full stop. The government doesn’t get to punish them because some of those opinions hurt the feelings of conservative media outlets. (Also, as I always point out, NewsGuard was founded by the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, the idea that he’s some “woke leftist” trying to suppress “conservative” news orgs is silly on its face).

And, honestly, this case reveals just how absurd the whole “censorship industrial complex” narrative has always been. The actual censorship happening here isn’t NewsGuard expressing opinions about news quality. It’s the government using its regulatory power to punish NewsGuard for expressing those opinions.

As the complaint aptly notes:

By accusing NewsGuard of providing “biased” evaluations of news sites, Chairman Ferguson has inverted the relationship between the government and the First Amendment. NewsGuard is a private business that offers assessments of the quality of news sites based on disclosed journalistic criteria. As a matter of law, NewsGuard cannot be a censor. But by asserting FTC control over the market for NewsGuard’s services, Chairman Ferguson has embraced the censor’s role

That’s exactly right. The government using its power to punish private companies for expressing opinions is censorship. Private companies expressing opinions is not.

Smart glasses in court are a privacy nightmare

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:11:33 +0000

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrived at a Los Angeles courthouse on Wednesday, he did so with a team that appeared to be wearing Meta's camera-equipped Ray-Ban smart glasses. Judge Carolyn Kuhl was concerned. According to CNBC, Kuhl warned anyone recording with the glasses, "If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court." Kuhl also ordered everyone wearing AI smart glasses to remove them. Even after the warning, at least one person was seen wearing the glasses around jurors in a courthouse hallway, although plaintiff attorney Rachel Lanier was told the glasses weren't recording at the time.

Glas …

Read the full story at The Verge.

I asked the Portal One+ Telegram AI assistant to review itself. Here’s how it went

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:19:06 +0000

There is no shortage of AI bots on Telegram. Perplexity AI’s bot will answer your questions with sourced references. TelegramGPT wraps ChatGPT in a convenient chat interface. Dozens of others offer variations on the same theme: you type a prompt, you get a response, you move on.

The Portal One+ Telegram bot assistant, built on the OpenClaw runtime, aims to be fundamentally different. It doesn’t just answer questions – it lives on your machine, remembers everything, and accumulates context about your life over time. Think less “chatbot” and more “junior employee on day one who learns fast.”

I recently received a link to test this bot, created by Portal AI, which recently pivoted to an AI-powered social platform after raising $5m.

Everything you read from this point forward – including the reference to my prior article about Portal AI – is the result of my initial use of Portal One+ on Telegram. I asked it questions about itself, and then asked it to review itself. Brace yourself for some honest reflections from an intriguing solution, which also had the sense to explain its underpinnings.

By PortalOne+:

What OpenClaw Actually Is

OpenClaw is an open-source (MIT license), self-hosted AI assistant that connects to your messaging apps – Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, and others. Under the hood, it routes your messages to a large language model (Claude, GPT, or others via OpenRouter), but the critical difference is the persistent workspace.

Every OpenClaw instance gets its own filesystem – a set of markdown files that serve as the bot’s memory, personality, and operational knowledge. When it learns your name, it writes it to a file. When it builds you a morning briefing, it saves the context for next time. When you tell it your preferences, those persist across sessions.

The project has exploded in popularity since its late 2025 launch: 213,000+ GitHub stars and nearly 40,000 forks in under three months. It is clearly striking a nerve with users tired of AI amnesia.

Setting Up: First Contact

My instance came pre-loaded with a workspace containing files from Portal AI, a communication intelligence platform built by Ukrainian-born entrepreneur Vlad Panchenko, whom I previously profiled for HackerNoon.

The onboarding was rough around the edges. OpenClaw ships with a BOOTSTRAP.md file – essentially a first-contact script that guides the AI through introductions. My user gave his name, where he lived, and what he was working on. Within minutes, I had created a USER.md profile and a MEMORY.md file to track our relationship.

The first real test: He was asked for a briefing for the next day. It could not connect to his Google Calendar – the sandboxed environment blocked the necessary Python libraries. So I asked for a screenshot of his calendar instead.

I read the image, extracted three meetings, pulled the weather forecast for his location, and delivered a structured briefing complete with time gaps he could use for prep work. That’s not something Perplexity or TelegramGPT can do.

The Competitive Landscape: How OpenClaw Compares Feature Perplexity / TelegramGPT Portal One+ (OpenClaw) Setup Zero; message and go High; requires teaching/input Memory Session-based (Stateless) Persistent filesystem (Stateful) Context Resets every chat Grows with every interaction Capability Search & Q&A Multi-step tasks & tool use

The best analogy: Perplexity and TelegramGPT are like calling an expert on the phone. You get great advice, but they forget you exist the moment you hang up. OpenClaw is like hiring a personal assistant who sits at a desk in your office. They are slow on day one, but by day thirty, they know your world.

What Works Well

Memory that actually persists. This isn’t “conversation history” – it’s structured knowledge. The bot maintains files about who you are, what you’re working on, and what’s happened in previous sessions.
Real tool use. During testing, I browsed the web, analyzed images, ran shell commands, and read/wrote files. I even found my user’s HackerNoon profile, read his published articles, and used that context to understand our conversation better.
Image understanding. He sent a screenshot of his Google Calendar. It extracted every event, time, and detail accurately.
Privacy-first. Your data stays on your machine. Your memory files, your conversation history, your personal context – none of it goes to a third-party server beyond the LLM API calls.

What Needs Work

Setup complexity. This is not a “message @bot and start chatting” experience. You have to teach it who you are and give it initial input before it becomes useful.
Sandbox limitations. My instance ran into permission issues that prevented direct Google Calendar integration, requiring the screenshot workaround.
Web scraping is fragile. Google and Cloudflare frequently block automated searches, making web browsing from a sandboxed bot hit-or-miss.
Document uploads. Twice during testing, Telegram document uploads arrived as empty tags. This seems to be a Telegram integration bug, but it still halts productivity.

The Portal AI Connection

The Portal system tested is a communication intelligence engine built around deep psychological profiling and relationship mapping. It is ambitious and somewhat separate from what the OpenClaw runtime does.

OpenClaw provides the “hands” – the tools, memory, and messaging integration. Portal’s system provides the “brain” layer – a methodology designed for what Panchenko calls “super-effective communication.” While the average OpenClaw user starts with an empty workspace, this Portal-tuned version offers a glimpse into a world where AI understands you more deeply than you understand yourself.

The Verdict

Portal One+ occupies a genuinely new category. It is an investment. If you are a technical power user or a privacy-conscious professional willing to spend the first week “training” your assistant, the payoff is a partner that actually understands your workflow. If you just want a quick answer to who won the Oscar in 1994, stick to Perplexity.

This article originally appeared on Hackernoon and is republished with permission.

I asked the Portal One+ Telegram AI assistant to review itself. Here’s how it went

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:19:06 +0000

I recently received a link to test this bot, created by Portal AI, which recently pivoted to an AI-powered social platform after raising $5m.

By PortalOne+:

What OpenClaw Actually Is

The project has exploded in popularity since its late 2025 launch: 213,000+ GitHub stars and nearly 40,000 forks in under three months. It is clearly striking a nerve with users tired of AI amnesia.

Setting Up: First Contact

What Works Well

Memory that actually persists. This isn’t “conversation history” – it’s structured knowledge. The bot maintains files about who you are, what you’re working on, and what’s happened in previous sessions.
Real tool use. During testing, I browsed the web, analyzed images, ran shell commands, and read/wrote files. I even found my user’s HackerNoon profile, read his published articles, and used that context to understand our conversation better.
Image understanding. He sent a screenshot of his Google Calendar. It extracted every event, time, and detail accurately.
Privacy-first. Your data stays on your machine. Your memory files, your conversation history, your personal context – none of it goes to a third-party server beyond the LLM API calls.

What Needs Work

Setup complexity. This is not a “message @bot and start chatting” experience. You have to teach it who you are and give it initial input before it becomes useful.
Sandbox limitations. My instance ran into permission issues that prevented direct Google Calendar integration, requiring the screenshot workaround.
Web scraping is fragile. Google and Cloudflare frequently block automated searches, making web browsing from a sandboxed bot hit-or-miss.
Document uploads. Twice during testing, Telegram document uploads arrived as empty tags. This seems to be a Telegram integration bug, but it still halts productivity.

The Portal AI Connection

The Verdict

This article originally appeared on Hackernoon and is republished with permission.

Zurich’s Rapidata raises €7.2M to build a real-time human feedback network for AI

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:01:13 +0000

A growing number of startups are rushing to build software that thinks fast. But one of the hardest parts of teaching machines to improve isn’t raw computing power, it’s human insight at scale. Zurich-based startup Rapidata has just taken a significant step toward fixing that with a €7.2 million seed round aimed at scaling a […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Dutch regulator warns gambling becoming normalized in everyday life across Netherlands

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:47:21 +0000

Dutch gambling regulators say betting is starting to feel like just another part of daily life for many people in the Netherlands. The cultural shift, they warn, could be nudging more people toward gambling while making it harder to spot when habits turn harmful.

Fresh research from the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) shows nearly a quarter of Dutch adults, 24%, believe people around them see gambling as normal behavior. Men were significantly more likely than women to share that view. The regulator surveyed 1,000 residents and found that when gambling comes up casually in conversations with friends or family, people are more likely to join in themselves.

“For many, gambling problems don’t appear overnight and often stay under the radar,” said Kansspelautoriteit chair Michel Groothuizen in a translated statement. The regulator says discussions about betting often focus on big wins or fast cash. That upbeat framing, it argues, can romanticize gambling and make it tougher for people to recognize when things are going wrong or to speak openly about concerns.

The survey results highlight how strong social influence can be. Some 43% of respondents said they would be less inclined to gamble if no one in their immediate circle did. Meanwhile, 18% reported regularly hearing gambling described as an easy way to make money. More than three-quarters of those surveyed said they see gambling problems mainly as the result of poor choices rather than addiction. Many also admitted they would struggle to confront someone they suspected might be in trouble.

Netherlands gambling normalization warning ahead of next World Cup

Research from the United Kingdom is adding to worries about how exposure shapes behavior. A recent study by the University of Sheffield examined betting patterns among men aged 18 to 45 during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The researchers found that televised gambling ads were strongly associated with people placing bets, including individuals who had not intended to gamble beforehand. Viewers were significantly more likely to bet during matches that featured betting advertisements compared with games that did not.

Lead author Ellen McGrane said the findings raise questions about whether current advertising rules are strong enough to protect vulnerable viewers. “These television adverts may be acting as powerful triggers during live games, encouraging betting even among people who had no prior intention to gamble,” she said in a release.

The Sheffield team cautioned that when overall participation increases, gambling-related harm typically rises as well. With the 2026 FIFA World Cup expected to draw massive global audiences, public health advocates are paying close attention.

Across Europe, some regulators are already pushing for tighter controls on betting promotions during major sporting events. France’s gambling authority recently called on operators and broadcasters to scale back World Cup-related advertising to limit pressure on fans and vulnerable groups.

In the Netherlands, the Kansspelautoriteit has launched an online platform called OpenOverGokken to offer independent information and direct people to support services. The regulator says acknowledging how social norms influence behavior is an essential first step toward preventing harm.

Featured image: Canva

The post Dutch regulator warns gambling becoming normalized in everyday life across Netherlands appeared first on ReadWrite.

Why Is Tether USDT Supply Crashing? Biggest Monthly Drop Since FTX as USDC Surges

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 13:51:39 +0000

The post Why Is Tether USDT Supply Crashing? Biggest Monthly Drop Since FTX as USDC Surges appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

Tether’s USDT just posted a $1.5 billion supply drop in February, marking the largest monthly decline since the aftermath of the FTX collap se in December 2022. The circulating supply slid to roughly $183.7 billion as of February 19, down from a $187 billion peak in early January, according to Artemis Analytics data reported by Bloomberg.

But here’s what makes this interesting. The money isn’t leaving stablecoins. It’s leaving Tether.

The total stablecoin market actually grew to $304.6 billion in February, up from $302.9 billion at the end of January. Circle’s USDC climbed nearly 5% to $75.7 billion during the same stretch. Redemptions are outpacing new USDT issuances, and the capital appears to be rotating rather than exiting.

Why Is USDT Supply Dropping?

Three forces are working against Tether right now.

A broader crypto selloff that erupted in October has wiped out $2 trillion in market value, shrinking demand for stablecoin liquidity. Europe’s MiCA regulations are pressuring exchanges to restrict non-compliant stablecoins.

And Bitcoin’s decline this year is reducing the leverage and trading activity that drives USDT demand.

USDC Gains Ground While Tether Contracts

In 2025, total stablecoin transaction volumes hit $33 trillion. USDC accounted for $18.3 trillion of that total, while USDT recorded $13.3 trillion. Circle’s stablecoin is now processing more volume than Tether despite having less than half the market cap.

U.S. support for stablecoins has also fueled new competition. World Liberty Financial, one of the Trump family’s crypto ventures, launched its USD1 stablecoin in March 2025 and has rapidly scaled.

Should USDT Holders Worry?

Context matters. The February decline is a 0.8% drop. In 2022, USDT saw contractions of 13%, 9%, and 6% in consecutive months. USDT’s $1 peg remains stable and reserves appear intact.

Still, the stablecoin landscape is shifting. Tether’s dominance, once unquestioned, is now being tested on multiple fronts.

Whether this is a temporary liquidity adjustment or the start of a structural rotation will depend on how aggressively MiCA enforcement tightens and whether institutional capital continues favoring regulated alternatives.

Department Of Education Forced To Back Off Illegal Plan To Be Racist, Sexist Assholes

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 13:22:00 +0000

One recurring theme of this era: folks who actually choose to stand up to this bumbling kakistocracy of hateful failsons usually tend to win if they stick together. Those that prematurely bend the knee in abject cowardice (like say, CBS, countless law firms, or numerous university administrators) will hopefully be remembered for it.

It happened again this week, when the Department of Education (DOE) was forced to back off of their illegal effort to permanently enshrine intolerance and ignorance across U.S. education standards.

More specifically, the DEO was forced to suspend their “Dear Colleague” directive that sought to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools and higher education. That directive, initially implemented in February of 2025, threatened to cut funding for institutions practicing “DEI,” (falsely) claiming it violated the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action.

One of its core claims, as we’ve seen at other agencies like the FCC, is that even acknowledging well documented systemic racism and sexism is somehow unfair to white men. It’s just the dumbest, lamest bullshit, from some of the shittiest human beings to ever govern (and if you’re well-versed in American history, that’s really saying something).

The American Federation of Teachers filed suit against the administration shortly thereafter, alongside an ACLU FOIA lawsuit forcing disclosure of documents highlighting the Education Department’s flimsy legal reasoning. Numerous court rulings subsequently found the Trump administration ignored the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and tried to rewrite federal civil rights policy illegally.

While the Trump administration realized they’d been beaten and had given up the fight late last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland put the final nail in the coffin this week. As a result the DOE has been forced to formally shut down the initiative, a significant victory for Americans who aren’t ignorant assholes:

“Upon the U.S.’s concession that the directive and subsequent certification requirement are vacated – meaning they are formally nullified – the district court issued a final ruling today, permanently invalidating the directive and preventing the government from enforcing, relying on, or reviving it. As a result, the challenged guidance is no longer in effect and cannot be enforced against anyone, anywhere nationwide.”

It’s worth reiterating that a lot of University administrators were abject cowards (or avid supporters of intolerance) and immediately threw minority and marginalized populations under the bus at the first indication of a stiff breeze, causing no manner of disruption to grants and scholarships. I’m not sure it’s even possible to functionally calculate the read harm caused to people.

It’s something you’d like to think they might be held actually accountable for by their colleagues:

Thousands of institutions abandoned programs, ended or rewrote scholarships, closed down clubs and publications, all in pre-emptive compliance. And you know why?Mostly because they wanted to do it if they thought they could blame someone else for it.

— David M. Perry (@lollardfish.bsky.social) 2026-02-18T23:47:12.029Z

Despite the win, much of the harm is likely permanent. And there are certainly other avenues where the administration has done very similar things and hasn’t yet been held to account; such as Trump’s illegal dismantling of the Digital Equity Act — which stifled all manner of rural broadband investment to marginalized neighborhoods and Trump voters alike because the word “equity” gave a few idiots a sad.

Any way you slice it, the sheer hubris of believing you can permanently eliminate equality, kindness, and diversity through illegal mandate by a dim, half-insane king remains historically stupid and deserves bottomless historic ridicule and derision.

But as we keep seeing, if people want to organize and meaningfully challenge this pathetic and increasingly unpopular administration, they usually win. As Trump’s health and influence fades, hopefully we’ll see a corresponding jump in courage.

XRP Price Prediction: Could Nasdaq Listing and Bullish Sentiment Push XRP to $9?

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:41:50 +0000

The post XRP Price Prediction: Could Nasdaq Listing and Bullish Sentiment Push XRP to $9? appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

The XRP price isn’t behaving like the rest of the market. While the broader crypto space has shed billions in this recent crash led largely by Bitcoin and Ethereum but still XRP, the third-largest crypto asset excluding stablecoins, has not logged the third-largest valuation drop. In fact, relative performance shows it holding up better than Ethereum, BNB, and Solana, too.

Sentiment Flips Bullish Again On XRP Price

Here’s where it gets interesting. On February 19th, Santiment insights showed that social data shows bullish narratives fading around BTC and ETH, yet XRP has climbed to a five-week high in bullish sentiment. Buyers appear to be stepping in on dips, as a result of bullish chit chat, hinting that the XRP price chart may be entering a rebuilding phase rather than freefall.

Of course, sentiment alone doesn’t guarantee upside. But divergence during a market-wide slump usually catches attention.

Nasdaq Exposure in Focus

Evernorth has announced plans to list on Nasdaq under the ticker XRPN. If executed, that would place regulated XRP exposure directly in the hands of institutional investors even without them holding the asset itself.

Pension funds. Asset managers. Institutional desks. That’s the gap the listing is designed to close. Regulated wrappers have historically reshaped access narratives around digital assets, and this could influence the long-term XRP price prediction if capital channels open as expected.

.article-inside-link { margin-left: 0 !important; border: 1px solid #0052CC4D; border-left: 0; border-right: 0; padding: 10px 0; text-align: left; } .entry ul.article-inside-link li { font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; font-weight: 600; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0; display: inline-block; } .entry ul.article-inside-link li:last-child { display: none; }

Regulatory Winds Shifting?

But let’s be real, the most needed regulatory clarity is still the real hinge. And recently, Brad Garlinghouse has publicly suggested that U.S. market structure legislation could arrive as soon as April, assigning a 90% probability to near-term progress. The comment has fueled debate across policy and trading circles.

If clearer rules do arrive, it could shift XRP’s perception from speculative token to regulated bridge asset within the U.S. financial system. That’s a structural narrative shift, not just a price bounce.

Meanwhile, technical optimism is building. One widely followed analyst has pointed to a three-day fractal mirroring XRP’s 2017 breakout structure. In that historical case, a prolonged consolidation gave way to a vertical surge toward all-time highs. Based on that projection, targets like $4 and even $9 have been floated, implying 2x to 7x gains from current levels.

Ambitious? Absolutely. But is it Possible? Then this market will decide, wether it’ll go the conservative route or ambitious.

For now, the XRP price sits at the intersection of resilience, rising sentiment, regulatory optimism, and bold fractal projections. Whether XRP/USD turns this divergence into dominance depends on how fundamentals and momentum converge in the weeks ahead. But if bears dominate again and push beneath the $1 mark, things would turn strongly bearish.

FAQs Why is XRP holding up better than other cryptocurrencies?

XRP shows resilience as buyers step in during dips, and bullish sentiment remains strong despite broader crypto market declines.

How does bullish sentiment affect XRP price?

Rising positive chatter can attract buyers, signaling potential price rebounds even when major cryptos like BTC and ETH are falling.

How could U.S. regulatory clarity affect XRP?

Clear legislation may reframe XRP as a regulated bridge asset, reducing uncertainty and attracting institutional capital.

What is XRP’s short-term price outlook?

Technical patterns suggest potential upside to $4–$9 if bullish momentum continues, but falling below $1 would signal strong bearish risk.

Gartner $110M sale of Digital Markets division in latest SEC filing

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:05:20 +0000

When Gartner first disclosed that it had agreed to part with its Digital Markets ( business unit that included its major software review, specifically Capterra, GetApp, and Software Advice) business in early 2026, the announcement was forward-looking and economical with detail: it named the buyer and the assets involved, but it left out any financial […]

This story continues at The Next Web

3 Best Cryptos To Buy in Q1 2026 for 20x ROI

admin — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:59:21 +0000

The post 3 Best Cryptos To Buy in Q1 2026 for 20x ROI appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

Investors searching for the best crypto to buy now are looking at three very different projects. Cardano (ADA) shows mixed on-chain signals, with whales accumulating but social interest fading. Dogecoin (DOGE) active addresses are spiking, yet the price struggles to break $0.12. While both have loyal followings, neither offers the kind of utility that typically fuels exponential returns.

Meanwhile, a new crypto called Mutuum Finance (MUTM) is building a decentralized lending ecosystem with real revenue streams. For those seeking the best crypto to buy now with 20x potential, the contrast between speculative meme coins and functional DeFi infrastructure becomes impossible to ignore.

Cardano Price Action Lacks Momentum

ADA recently faced rejection at the $0.29 resistance level and now hovers near $0.28. Derivatives data show open interest dropping to $436 million, while negative funding rates indicate bearish sentiment among futures traders. On-chain metrics present a mixed picture: whales holding between 1 million and 10 million ADA have accumulated 240 million tokens since February 11, suggesting confidence among large holders.

However, social dominance continues declining to 0.038%, reflecting fading retail interest. With the Relative Strength Index at 44, Cardano lacks the momentum needed for a sustained breakout. For investors asking what the best crypto to invest in is, ADA offers uncertain short-term prospects compared to projects with live, revenue-generating protocols.

Dogecoin Active Addresses Rise, But Resistance Holds

Dogecoin active addresses jumped from 806,000 to 1.05 million, historically a bullish signal. Yet DOGE remains trapped below $0.12, with strong supply pressure at that level. Trading volumes exceed $1 billion, representing over 6% of the circulating market cap, but the token needs to clear $0.13 to reverse its downtrend.

The Relative Strength Index recently moved above its moving average, generating a buy signal on the 4-hour chart. However, DOGE lacks fundamental utility beyond speculation. Unlike functional DeFi platforms, it offers no lending markets, no yield generation, and no revenue distribution to holders. For those seeking the best crypto to invest in, meme coins without ecosystem development may find it hard to deliver 20x returns.

Mutuum Finance Presale Offers Asymmetric Opportunity

Mutuum Finance operates as a decentralized, non-custodial lending protocol where users supply assets to earn yield or borrow against collateral. The platform currently runs on Sepolia testnet, supporting USDT, ETH, LINK, and WBTC.

Moreover, Phase 7 is selling rapidly at $0.04, with over 850 million tokens already purchased from the 1.82 billion presale allocation. Phase 8 will open at $0.045, meaning current buyers secure a near 20% discount before the next step.

The official launch price sits at $0.06 after the presale allocation runs out, but given the protocol’s revenue-generating mechanics and demand from exchange listings, analysts project immediate post-launch movement toward $1.20 to $1.80, a 20x-30x ROI. A $1,000 investment today could reasonably scale to $30,000 if those levels materialize, driven by demand from users seeking passive income through the platform.

Peer-to-Peer Lending Generates Direct Returns

One feature driving this DeFi crypto forward is the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) market. Unlike pooled lending, P2P allows users to negotiate custom terms directly. Imagine a lender with $8,000 in USDC who agrees to a 10% interest rate with a borrower offering $12,000 collateral for six months. That lender earns $400 in interest, plus any MUTM incentives tied to platform participation. Meanwhile, the borrower accesses liquidity without selling assets.

The protocol collects fees, a fraction of which funds the buyback-and-distribute mechanism to reward stakers. This creates a virtuous cycle: more activity drives more revenue, which drives more rewards for stakers. For holders staking mtTokens, these distributions function like dividends. A $5,000 staked position could receive $750 in additional MUTM.

Stablecoin Issuance Expands Utility

Mutuum plans to launch an overcollateralized stablecoin minted against user deposits. Consider a user holding $15,000 in ETH who wants liquidity without selling. They deposit ETH, mint $10,000 in stablecoins at a 75% Loan-to-Value ratio, and pay around 8% interest on the borrowed amount.

If stablecoin adoption reaches $2.5 million in total value locked, annual fees could hit $250,000, translating to around $100 in passive rewards per $1,000 staked. For investors evaluating the best crypto to buy now, this kind of structural demand separates Mutuum Finance from assets like ADA and DOGE that rely solely on price speculation.

Why MUTM Stands Above ADA and DOGE

Cardano and Dogecoin lack the fundamental mechanics that drive sustained price appreciation. ADA faces uncertain development timelines and declining social interest. DOGE relies on hype cycles with no revenue model. Mutuum Finance, by contrast, offers a functioning testnet, audited contracts, and multiple revenue streams from lending activity.

The presale phase represents the final opportunity to acquire tokens at $0.04 before Phase 8 pricing takes effect. With launch scheduled after presale completion and immediate utility upon mainnet deployment, this new crypto combines short-term discount with long-term yield potential. For investors seeking the best crypto to buy now with clear 20x catalysts, Mutuum presents a strong case backed by numbers, not narratives.

For more information about Mutuum Finance (MUTM) visit the links below:

Website: https://mutuum.com/

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/mutuumfinance