Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#791

Post by the8472 »

notahacker wrote: post #268
TeMPOraL wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing: probability estimates. Realistically speaking, they had every opportunity to enact this ban before, and freedom to do so after the #gamestonk bonanza dies down. So why act now?

Realistically speaking those particular forums weren't major news stories and flooded with new users (many of them not working for hedge funds!) who don't like what they see before. From the point of view of someone with no stake in the outcome, the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an arg…

So rules are only enforced when things are in the news?

> the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action

That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant.

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#792

Post by IgorPartola »

marvin wrote: post #699
ve55 wrote: post #14

And they chose today as the best possible time to enact this ban? Really? I really think they should have put more thought into the timing of this decision; a lot of users are going to be upset and will suddenly start to realize that a single company has a monopoly on their online social life (this may seem like an exaggeration, but it feels quite true to me colloquially, especially if you're a younger US male and/or…

The Discord ban was clearly because the community itself is controversial from a legal point of view. That's why the ban happened today. But I think this is an unwise move. Each community that is censored over something legal but controversial, pushes the creative citizens of the Internet towards building more open platforms. Hope we end up there soon, this constant censorship of communities I might want to have a lo…

How exactly is WSB controversial from a legal point of view?

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#793

Post by bhl »

Semaphor wrote: post #444

For those wondering why the sub went private for a time: > We have grown to the kind of size we only dreamed of in the time it takes to get a bad nights sleep. We've got so many comments and submissions that we can't possibly even read them all, let alone act on them as moderators. We wrote software to do most of the moderation for us but that software isn't allowed to read the Reddit new feed fast enough and submit…

For numbers, r/wsb had around 2.3m yesterday morning (Wednesday 3 am) and now has 4.3m members, so that's a jump of 2 million new in less than a day.

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#794

Post by mywacaday »

Jonnax wrote: post #741
betwixthewires wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired old argument and it isn't convincing or effective. There's a big difference between some kids screaming in your coffee shop and a community on a website supposedly dedicated to free discussion. A more apt comparison would be a group in a corner having a conversation at a rock concert. Suddenly this argument appears less apt. And while some are screaming for these sites to get shut down over it, most o…

Where does discord say it's for free discussion? In two clicks I found their community guidelines on their website: https://discord.com/guidelines Second rule: "Do not organize, promote, or coordinate servers around hate speech. It’s unacceptable to attack a person or a community based on attributes such as their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or disabilities…

I saw a comment on WSB that said they have bots that remove all swear words etc but some people use unicode etc to write the words anyway. I don't know if its true but where is the line for a ban if a genuine effort is being made to moderate?

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#795

Post by imtringued »

Anon1096 wrote: post #470
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with this post. Although the narrative being spun on WallStreetBets and co wants you to believe in a short squeeze, it doesn't seem like any shorts were actually squeezed. This morning, Melvin Capital and Citron successfully exited their positions in Gamestop. Had there been a true squeeze, the whole point would have been to prevent an easy exit and force them to cause the price to balloon out of control. By…

If that were true Melvin Capital would just say nothing and ride the profits. If you are a short seller with a covered position (with options) your goal would be to let as many desperate/stupid people enter before the crash because it means there will be less resistance to price drops after the crash because all the dumb and unpredictable money is gone. You would instead push propaganda that your shorts are not covered and lure people into your trap.

If your shorts are not covered then you are basically completely screwed and are willing to do absolutely anything to tank the price as soon as possible even if it means you do not get maximum possible returns. You would push propaganda that your shorts are covered and convince people that you have complete control over the situation.

If you told the truth you would be exposing yourself to unnecessary risk in both cases.

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#796

Post by lm28469 »

lavp wrote: post #767
ggggtez wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you even come up with these outdated ideas. Very few people care about what you are talking about. The subset of people who care are: tech savvy, young, mostly male, and vaguely misanthropic. This demographic is already served in numerous places, and everyone else is rather glad to see these people chased off of platforms they use for sharing videos of dancing and food.

You vastly underestimate the size of this demographic, which is exactly what the short-sellers of GameStop did.

A few hundred thousands, maybe a few millions at most. A drop in the bucket of internet users

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#797

Post by ZGDUwpqEWpUZ »

JacKTrocinskI wrote: post #766
Traster wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to stop being so lazy and throwing around the word censorship. If a bunch or teenagers come into my coffee shop and start loudly calling each autists and retards I'm going to kick them out. I'm not censoring them by kicking them out.

That is exactly what censorship is, you don't like how they're acting or what they're saying so you censor them by kicking them out.

They seem to think that if it's not "censorship" then it can't be criticized, as if the word itself is magic.

Discord did a thing and people don't like the thing Discord did. Now what?

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#798

Post by gsich »

Traster wrote: post #714
NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #669

This is really exciting, feels like open standards, independent internet is going to continue getting extreme motivation to expand and establish, with private "freedom of speech" censorship by for-profit platforms. We're going to see more fragmentation, and growth of closed platforms perceived by users as "slightly less evil" such as telegram vs watsapp. This may also motivate the return to truly open internet ideals…

People need to stop being so lazy and throwing around the word censorship. If a bunch or teenagers come into my coffee shop and start loudly calling each autists and retards I'm going to kick them out. I'm not censoring them by kicking them out.

What does Discord want to be? (Same goes for Facebook/Twitter ...)

Moderated content because you are responsible for stuff that's being posted? Then go "censor" stuff all you want. Same rules for all.

Open platform and not be responsible for content? (Similar to ISPs) Then everything should be allowed until a judge tells otherwise.

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#799

Post by zo1 »

Traster wrote: post #714
NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #669

This is really exciting, feels like open standards, independent internet is going to continue getting extreme motivation to expand and establish, with private "freedom of speech" censorship by for-profit platforms. We're going to see more fragmentation, and growth of closed platforms perceived by users as "slightly less evil" such as telegram vs watsapp. This may also motivate the return to truly open internet ideals…

People need to stop being so lazy and throwing around the word censorship. If a bunch or teenagers come into my coffee shop and start loudly calling each autists and retards I'm going to kick them out. I'm not censoring them by kicking them out.

Okay cool, let's invent a new term. How about: "Politically motivated minority persecution?"

Maybe a bit too much. How about: "Social Engineering via Targeted Group Deplatforming?"

Because that is how these look-like to me and to a lot of these "persecuted" groups. These groups aren't necessarily "hateful" or "organizing" violence. A lot of the time it's just distasteful, kinda sexist etc and the "platform" owners simply don't like them and want to keep them from growing because (I think) they think that there is a real fear that societal opinion might swing their way. However the missing key here is that a lot of times, these are genuine "political movements" before they've cooled & solidified, and exist solely as mis-directed or nebulous emotion, hence the "hateful" and distasteful content.

Not all, but a good chunk of them of course. Sometimes you just get bad groups, but in a lot of those cases, I think it's more clear that they're doing something blatantly evil. For lack of a better example: coordinating and sharing info on how to sabotage deforestation using dangerous methods like putting nails inside trees, which would cause chainsaws to snap and hurt the operators.

Re: Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while

#800

Post by gsich »

onethought wrote: post #729
_v7gu wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands of such online communities, and you only throw out the ones that threaten your hedge fund?

That isn’t what censorship is. Nor is it a violation of free speech. The government didn’t get involved. Private companies and individuals can do what ever they like with their property, no?

>That isn’t what censorship is. Nor is it a violation of free speech. The government didn’t get involved.

That's not the definition of censorship. To quote Wikipedia:

"Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

Post reply on HN