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

#971

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #906

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything is market manipulation, its shorting over 100% of a company to push down it's share price even lower and destroy the company

Intent is very important and this keeps being lost on the layman crowd. If I go to a widely publicized open forum and say: "Let's go and squeeze the shorts so that they go bankrupt, oh and here's a picture of me doing just that." that's market manipulation and in many corners of the world, that's illegal. As in, you go to jail illegal. If I short a stock because I genuinely believe it's overpriced, that's perfectly l…

It is obvious from your comment you are the laymen, it is very tiring hearing accusations of criminality from you when you get lost in the basics. You seem to be the kind of folks that the headlines 'Nazis and white supremasists are buying gamestop' are designed for.

Stock can be bough for reasons that have nothing to do with it's market value.

I can buy a stock because i want to own it, maybe i want the voting rights, maybe i want to have standing so that i can file a lawsuit for securities fraud. Maybe i am planning hostile takeover. Maybe I want to proudly hang it at my door.

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

#972

Post by short_sells_poo » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #971

short_sells_poo wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent is very important and this keeps being lost on the layman crowd. If I go to a widely publicized open forum and say: "Let's go and squeeze the shorts so that they go bankrupt, oh and here's a picture of me doing just that." that's market manipulation and in many corners of the world, that's illegal. As in, you go to jail illegal. If I short a stock because I genuinely believe it's overpriced, that's perfectly l…

It is obvious from your comment you are the laymen, it is very tiring hearing accusations of criminality from you when you get lost in the basics. You seem to be the kind of folks that the headlines 'Nazis and white supremasists are buying gamestop' are designed for. Stock can be bough for reasons that have nothing to do with it's market value. I can buy a stock because i want to own it, maybe i want the voting right…

What the hell are you on about? For once, you know nothing about me and second, you are attacking a strawman. I said nothing about there being only one legitimate reason to trade a stock.

I am fully aware that you can buy or sell stocks for a myriad reasons, including meming. What is against the rules is trading stocks with the express intent of manipulating the market and deliberately squeezing other participants. This is exactly what was being pushed by WSB.

If you want to engage in adult debate, please refrain from personal accusations and strawmen.

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

#973

Post by xxpor » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

dirtyid wrote: post #558

xxpor wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H-1B stats disagree.

20K Chinese H1B Visas are a drop in the bucket in terms of opportunity. H1Bs are for people looking to make modest living, the real money is back in China. Common thing you hear from many nouveau riche Chinese is how poor the west are, young professional couple pulling 300K household income can barely afford to live nicely after inflation. Of course, that's still a very comfortable life, but western upper middle clas…

The point is the demand still vastly exceeds the supply.

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

#974

Post by short_sells_poo » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #921

short_sells_poo wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent is very important and this keeps being lost on the layman crowd. If I go to a widely publicized open forum and say: "Let's go and squeeze the shorts so that they go bankrupt, oh and here's a picture of me doing just that." that's market manipulation and in many corners of the world, that's illegal. As in, you go to jail illegal. If I short a stock because I genuinely believe it's overpriced, that's perfectly l…

What is the difference between your argument and a saying "the big boys know how to benefit from the corruption inherent in the system and the regulators would rather persecute a bunch of powerless people than confront the corruption in their own industry"?

This is not about knowing how to benefit from corruption. This is like basic common sense. I'm not engaging in whataboutism or trying to excuse bad behavior. Market abuse, including market manipulation should be punished irrespective of who is doing it.

I was pointing out the fact that if you go and do it and then brag about it in a public forum, don't be surprised that you get dinged.

It's literally like robbing a bank and then going to the police to hand in the video evidence, only to be surprised when the policemen are not impressed. Yes the big guys should be prosecuted. But perhaps if you didn't explicitly stand on the corner shouting "I'm going to rob a bank and all you guys should also rob banks", the authorities wouldn't be on to you.

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

#975

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #939

ballenf wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... this isn't going to end well for the average consumer. My prediction is reddit will shutdown wsb because that's what reddit does. And there will be more laws made targeting individuals engaging in this sort of activity (basically coordinating with groups of people). This may hurt newsletters and other financial venues. The large hedge funds will be fine, we might see a few bailouts, and life will go on. I total…

> If the new regs enshrine the current reality in law then maybe there'll be more hope for fundamental reform. This is a sideshow. Feds or regulatory body will crack down, we'll just accept another banned community that is "a threat to our democracy" and we'll move on. I don't think what is essentially financial de-regulation is a movement that's going to pick up steam some time soon. There's vagueness in securities…

Regulators and prosecutors do as industry tells them. In this case it's not clear that industry wants anything changed. The smarter hedge reptiles made some money riding the momentum of this thing, and will make more riding it back down when it collapses. Being reptiles, they won't cry because one or two of their number didn't make it out alive. Smart money is never going to outlaw dumb money.

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

#976

Post by trianglem » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

SXX wrote: post #560

trianglem wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan has been responsible for turning so many kids into racists using humor. I remember a whole period in like 2010 when there was a — before 4chan I used to see black people as “black person in a suit”, now I see black people as “terribly racist caricature”. I would hate to see it go but boy is that place the true breeding ground for hate.

No offence here, but if 4chan making racism "fun" was sufficient to make some kid hate real people including their neighbours or friends then it's was never a problem with the platform. It's just indication of larger problem in both society and / or upbringing. People who can be easily radicalized or manipulated is just indication that they wasn't educated well enough to think on their own with their brain. And in an…

Really? So you don’t think continuous, one sided propaganda can radicalize people?

Subjected to enough propaganda, literally anyone will succumb to the propagated viewpoint with very few exceptions.

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

#977

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

nix23 wrote: post #780

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.

>Very few people care about what you are talking about. The flood of messages i got (XX is on Signal now) from techies and non-techies speak another language. >tech savvy, young, mostly male, and vaguely misanthropic. You forgot the word "white" ;)

ISTM you might be revealing more than you intend about the diversity of your social media contacts?

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

#978

Post by ibraheemdev » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

UPDATE - The server is now back up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25948101

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

#979

Post by atoav » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:49 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #858

atoav wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I have seen a few times now what happen when optimistic people goes with such rationale and attempt to apply it universally. To be more precise, people have tried to ban generalizations of group of people, banning the usage of gender where specifying gender is unnecessary, and of course banning the attacking people for who they were rather than attacking the argument. I have yet to see one community where it worked.…

Unless we rise above it. Certain things are never okay. But being intolerant and demanding tolerance is a shitty move as well. And it is nowhere near as clever as the people who try this think it is.

The discourse about whether and how much we should tolerate the intolerant is old and has be well discussed by post WWII philosophy. If we want to defend the freedom of all, we need to restrict those freedoms for the people who try to get rid of them.

Or as a neo nazi once said to me: "we want to establish the old power again, so we can silence you. until that happens, we want free speech".

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

#980

Post by betwixthewires » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #802

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…

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 w…

>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.

I'm sorry I don't understand, are you arguing on behalf or against Discord who called the wsb crowd a bunch of white supremacist Nazis? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely can't tell if you're defending the open discussion about stock trading or the people that came in and called them names and got them shut down.

I am all for a discussion focused group having rules and expecting participants to adhere to them and booting them out if they don't. What I am opposed to is businesses that market themselves as places to freely discuss, wait til they have market control, then change their terms and kick people out based on tenuous accusations, in this case for the apparent reason of protecting hedge funds from the market. It is egregious what Discord did.