451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't help that one of the most recent ones to try was deplatformed as it was gaining many new users.
No, it's because they became a legal risk as they were the primary host of insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol while chanting "Hang Mike Pence!". Also, private business can do whatever they want. 1st amendment only applies to government not private business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I joined and had an extremely negative experience immediately, left, and reported it. This was months ago. Imagine suddenly thousands of people are doing this and now Discord is being flooded with reports. - Something some people might not know as well, there was another WSB Discord started by Jartek that used to be linked on the subreddit That Discord was much more tame even with minimal moderation. No racial or hom…
Did you consider maybe just letting people enjoy things that aren’t for you instead?
Racist groups start with talk, then inevitably end with burning crosses and dangling nooses.
This isn’t hyperbole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they're a starting point. You could respond with agreement or disagreement and an argument.
The larger point I was making with my comment -- which seems to have been insufficiently clear -- was precisely that making extreme statements to trigger deliberately contentious argument is a style of interaction I prefer to avoid. Per the HN rules of conduct, I assumed good faith and interpreted the parent in the most favorable light I could, given it bordered on trolling. What is there to argue? The idea that ther…
Really?! I've seen plenty of trolling in my day, and that didn't ring any of my alarm bells.
Is it really that bizarre to you to call anti-establishment /r/wsb gamblers "nihilistic"? The ethos of the subreddit is basically "eh, screw it, let's see what happens" so is it that hard to imagine a subset of members going a little further, to "eh, screw it, none of this matters"?
Remember: Parler tried “making their own X”. They were taken offline by a concerted effort at every level, despite the fact that a large portion of the capitol protests were organized on Facebook and YouTube. Anyone who’s ever been an activist for long enough knows that the censorship that silenced your enemies will eventually silence you. Corporate policing of speech needs to stop.
Parler was explicitly unmoderated by choice and hate speech was its selling point. You’ll have a hard time finding a) a service provider willing to tolerate that and b) much public sympathy for the service promoting hate. Yet it called into question freedom of speech. Same thing today with WSB, but the focus is clearly not hate speech (even if Discord says so). I find today’s bans way more objectionable than Parler,…
It's worse than unmoderated. That would imply some sort of free speech zone where anything goes, but in reality any sort of left leaning stance will quickly get you banned.
For all the uneasy feelings I get about the triggerhappy banning by these platforms, there's probably a light at end of the tunnel. Boot enough people and the better alternatives might actually flourish with network effects.
Wait you actually think that when people are banned they simply just "go away"? Vanish in to thin air? Problem solved?
Is it just me or am I seeing more subtle revolt against this persistent, opaque censorship on the Internet?
I'm trying to stay down-to-Earth, but it honestly seems to be getting out of control with Google, Twitter, et al.
I think it is complete crap that companies using legal platform protections can ban people by arbitrarily declaring speech they don't like as hate speech. There should be legal requirements that any companies which enjoy platform protections must prove in a court of law that speech can accurately be classified as hateful before banning anyone.
2. if "hate speech" bans must go through the legal system, what about other bans? eg. trolling or other disruptive behavior?
3. going through the legal system takes months/years, how do you prevent actually bad actors from misusing this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some posts below said that banning for hate speech was really a charade. But if that's true, what's wrong with retail investors pooling their resources to squeeze short? How is it different from a hedge fund pooling resources to flex their muscle of financial engineering?
There wouldn't be anything wrong with that. There'd be a lot right with it, honestly - I would be trumpeting it as a clear victory of the little guy over snobby funds who don't think anyone else can understand finance. But what's happening right now is almost certainly a pump and dump with a short squeeze as a facade. I've seen a lot of commenters who seem to be grievously misled about the actual mechanics of a short…
this "make the regular people mad to fake a short squeeze to pump the stock" is some weird 4D explanation. not saying it's guaranteed, but the simplest answer is sometimes the best, that they are in a position to be squeezed and it's looking more likely.
For those of us not in the know, what is so special about today regarding WSB? I know there's a feud with short sellers going on, but I haven't been following the details.
The details: a hedge fund decided to short retail stocks during the pandemic. They overextended with a naked short position against GameStop (that brick and mortar video game retailer) that exceeds not only the share float by a large margin but even the total number of shares in existence. u/DeepFuckingValue on r/wallstreetbets discovered this a month or so ago, took out a $50k position, and let the rest of the sub i…