Discord bans r/WallStreetBets server, subreddit went private for a while • Hacker News Board

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

#801

Post by alpaca128 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:01 AM UTC

Traster wrote: post #730

_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?

By your standard every newspaper, every TV channel, every website that refuses to publish my views is censoring me. It's an absurd standard to call censorship. Discord has made no attempt to stop anyone saying anything, they're just chosen not to lend these people their megaphone.

Discord did lend these people their megaphone, though. What they did is like a news show interviewing a guest and then quickly cutting to advertisements because the guest started to make uncomfortable statements. And that sort of thing is very unusual in democratic countries, maybe unless a certain political figure starts spreading obvious misinformation with the goal of undermining the election process.

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

#802

Post by atoav » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:05 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #731

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.

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…

I have worked as a tutor at university. The best and most "free" discussions I experienced were all happening in a space where everybody was after finding some sort of insight.

This delicate balance was at times destoyed by a single person that started attacking people aggresively for who they were rather than attacking the argument they made in a way that makes them understand. Allowing that person to freely speak was reducing the classes freedom over all, because that person wanted to dominate the discussion so much, they fostered a climate were all other discussion was not possible anymore and free speech was prevented from happening.

In that case throwing someone out is a totally acceptable option. In fact this is the reason why discussion on this very site work out: because we are after insight and we punish behavior that is pure sophistry, aggressive, snarky, etc.

I am convinced that to speak freely as a collective, sometimes we must stop certain individuals from abusing their freedom of speech within our forums.

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

#803

Post by Kbelicius » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:06 AM UTC

ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote: post #785

Traster wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your standard every newspaper, every TV channel, every website that refuses to publish my views is censoring me. It's an absurd standard to call censorship. Discord has made no attempt to stop anyone saying anything, they're just chosen not to lend these people their megaphone.

This is one of the more stupid soundbites the pro-censorship crowd has come up with. A good red flag, though. Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used. That's different, practically and morally, from NBC not giving them a TV show.

> Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used.

They did not give it without terms of usage so your point is mute.

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

#804

Post by Tycho » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:07 AM UTC

I think the problem here is pretty obvious: we have laws and norms about hate speech, but why do we have nothing to prevent hate reading?. Why do we allow people to seek out and absorb hateful ideas and opinions? It's the intellectual equivalent of financing terrorism and the people engaging it are escaping justice. It's a huge blindspot for society. Who knows how much harm is caused by this 'dark thought' in every day life, as the rest of us unwittingly engage with these individuals, assuming they are not motivated by any sort of forbidden information.

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

#805

Post by nairboon » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:07 AM UTC

bhl wrote: post #793

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.

A big chunk of that are simply bot accounts. There has been a surge of new accounts spamming the sub and trying to manipulate people into selling.

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

#806

Post by user-the-name » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:09 AM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #792

marvin wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Stock market manipulation.

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

#807

Post by onethought » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:10 AM UTC

gsich wrote: post #800

onethought wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

That’s right, let’s ignore the context of this discussion, and instead argue the semantics of the word.

Do you cry censorship when someone shushes you in the cinema?

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

#808

Post by hanselot » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:14 AM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #796

lavp wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But if you subtract the billions devoid of critical thought, suddenly that sample size looks a lot sexier.

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

#809

Post by ppod » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:14 AM UTC

andromeduck wrote: post #790

jug wrote: post #777

It does feel like a watershed moment regarding hedge funds. This is the first time netizens capitalize on hedge fund short favorites and it has been surprisingly easy to cause an absolute catastrophy in the order of billion losses for them. I heard Melvin Capital may even have gone bankrupt? And how to do it? You get people to invest in a stock that is expected by the industry to go belly up. Seriously. It's that eas…

I'd argue that the last year or so of Tesla was the first major incarnation of this gamma squeeze + memes to burn short sellers but yeah GME is a while other level.

There is kind of a continuum between cases that are pure squeeze 'n memes and ones that are more based on non-linear long term value propositions. Three years ago, I think you could make a case for Tesla that it was either going to go bankrupt or grow many times over, but not stay in between. It may even be that bankruptcy was the more likely outcome. But if you gather enough support in the belief that a successful outcome is possible, then it can become self-fulfilling, especially if capital is one of the main obstacles. The company can use capital raised from the boom in the share price to lower debt and invest.

In the extreme case this could be true of almost any company. Imagine if GME were just a shell and a brand. Then they raise money, get a great board, hire industry experts, and go... whatever.. compete with Steam, turn the physical stores into e-sports venues, pivot to game development, whatever. Use the money to get the expertise, and you already have the brand and attention, which is now worth a lot more. That is kind of what happened with Tesla to some extent, although they already had a great brand a genius owner.

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

#810

Post by PartiallyTyped » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 11:18 AM UTC

mewse wrote: post #770

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…

> The internet needs a true public square Honest question: why?

Because when you can brand any idea as radical or dangerous, you get to dictate what radical or dangerous is, and when you do that, you control the narrative and people.