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

Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 540 posts

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#491

Post by exporectomy »

wvenable wrote: post #286
jb775 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Since Facebook is a private company, does the "if you don't like it, you can build your own platform" argument apply here? Or does that only apply selectively when it benefits partisan politics? The RobinHood $GME situation is the natural next step in societal evolution once extreme censorship is given a pass. If you support the "go build it yourself" argument, you no longer have the right to compla…

Absolutely! I'm not sure why you replied to my comment with this but I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right. Especially because there is no commercial or contractual relationship between us. I am not a customer of Facebook. If you pay for hosting t…

Do you believe Facebook has no legal or moral requirement to host content from people regardless of their race? I don't quite know the law in America, but I'm more interested in the moral question. Is racial discrimination by a company like Facebook morally acceptable to you regardless of whether it's legal or not?

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#492

Post by oarsinsync »

wvenable wrote: post #477
belorn wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying for hosting and signing contracts won't behold any company either, because any hosting company will have terms in their service contract that give them the right to discontinue the service at their discretion. A lot of people on HN also argue that companies has a right to decide which customers they want to have an association with, and thus there is no legal or moral requirement to continue hosting customer,…

As a paying customer, you can negotiate whatever terms you want. They will want the ability to discontinue your service and you will conversely want that ability as well. However you can negotiate the exact terms as well as any notice periods, etc. You have no consideration relationship with Facebook. You haven't entered into a contract. You are just filling out forms on a website.

> As a paying customer, you can negotiate whatever terms you want. They will want the ability to discontinue your service and you will conversely want that ability as well. However you can negotiate the exact terms as well as any notice periods, etc.

Theoretically, yes.

In reality, I’m too small an account to warrant anything besides boilerplate. The big boys may be able to negotiate. I cannot.

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#493

Post by morlockabove »

scrollaway wrote: post #484
morlockabove wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get wanting to crush untouchables; I just think it's a hysterical stance to take vis-a-vis something like FB. You're not having the King "do something about taxes"; you're having him go on witch hunts. I'm suspicious about how much witch-hunters actually want the king gone, or whether they wouldn't want to replace him with a cheka later. They have a vested interest in power staying centralized. This all makes it a…

> I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light I've been on HN for six years, if you truly want to know them, you can look at any of my older posts. Since you can "only assume", maybe seeing that you're wrong will finally get you to stop "assuming"? & personal attacks are not tolerated here, FYI. Going to stop replying now.

>personal attacks

That's rich, given the condescension you've shown in this thread.

Where I come from, trawling through people's post histories is creepy.

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#494

Post by morlockabove »

jonathankoren wrote: post #478
cambalache wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your internet provide cuts you off

Yeah, it’s a real shame that’s there is only one ISP in the whole world. If there was at least one more, maybe Pirate Bay wouldn’t have been killed in 2006.

Depending on where you live, there might only be one.

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#496

Post by [deleted] »

eggy wrote: post #438
wvenable wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be fishy but there is also a lot new interest in WSB and everything related. So much interest that /r/WSB voluntarily shut themselves down for a while because they couldn't handle the moderation situation. So why it's happening now can more multifaceted than the more conspiratorial reasons. Even increased media attention is enough for someone to act -- The Hackernews community uses that all the time to get a…

"/r/WSB voluntrily shut themselves down" is the point. It was self-managment. When a tech oligarchy - FB, Twitter, etc. acts together to censor that is my concern. Like there wasn't lot of silly banter or still is on many forums, except this one pissed off hedge fund managers and traditional investors. Mark must have lost money ;)

[deleted]

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#497

Post by WClayFerguson »

dang wrote: post #334
WClayFerguson wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Please stop posting ideological flamebait. You've done a ton of it in the last 24 hours, it's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it—regardless of which flavor you favor or how strongly you feel about it. Fortunately your recent account history doesn't show much of this before the current episode, and many of your comments seem downright excellent. That's great. Please go back to that and don't do…

I have no idea whether you're an admin, or just a prankster "dang", but it's true no one should kick the progressives while they're down.

The important thing is they now realize BigTech censorship is a problem for all Americans, and not just conservatives.

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#498

Post by wvenable »

exporectomy wrote: post #491
wvenable wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! I'm not sure why you replied to my comment with this but I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right. Especially because there is no commercial or contractual relationship between us. I am not a customer of Facebook. If you pay for hosting t…

Do you believe Facebook has no legal or moral requirement to host content from people regardless of their race? I don't quite know the law in America, but I'm more interested in the moral question. Is racial discrimination by a company like Facebook morally acceptable to you regardless of whether it's legal or not?

Facebook is no different than any other business in this case. If you walk into a restaurant and you are rude to the waiters or you cause a commotion that restaurant can refuse your service and kick you out. Or heck, maybe they just want to close early. Legal and moral. If you are Black and walk into a restaurant and you are refused service that is both illegal (in the US) and immoral.

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#499

Post by dvt »

kibwen wrote: post #470
perryizgr8 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing I doubt it. Cases in point: > I should not be free to > I should not be free to go around telling all your friends Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech. This is the main…

> You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty. And when the principles of freedom and liberty come into conflict with each other, how will you resolve it? If you must excommunicate me from the church of freedom of speech for the heresy of believing in the existence of more important personal liberties, then I accept my ostracision. In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today. Do y…

> In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today

He wasn't "doxxed." Why do people use that word so willy-nilly these days? Reuters did some investigative journalism and found out his identity through public sources. He's not a confidential informant, he wasn't trying to keep his identity a secret, and he was voluntarily interviewed by WSJ anyway.

And even if he was doxxed, it's up to the courts to decide of free speech outweighs the right to privacy. This is one of those edge cases that will sometimes be answered in the negative, and sometimes in the positive.

Re: Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy

#500

Post by dang »

forgingahead wrote: post #374
dang wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

@dang, I appreciate all your work moderating here, I'm sure it's pretty thankless at the best of times, but you do keep this place one of the best places on the internet for technical discussion. So thank you for that. That being said, I disagree with the assessment of my comment. Those of us (and there were many) who warned about this escalating when Trump was censored and deplatformed were downvoted and flagged at…

If you had posted this explanation in the first place then it wouldn't have been flamebait. The problem with what you did post is that it was snarky and unsubstantive, as well as a partisan provocation. Certainly that breaks the site guidelines—more than one of them, in fact.

It's fascinating to me how common it is that people's second comment (e.g. after a moderation reply) will give a detailed substantive expression of what they actually meant. I think we all assume that what's in our mind will come across in our comments, but actually it doesn't come across by itself—it needs to be formulated explicitly, as you did in your later reply.

If you don't share it explicitly, but only give a quick pointer to it, people will fill that in with what's in their mind, which is a huge range of possible interpretations, many of which are inflammatory or even attacks, whether you meant it that way or not. Commenters will respond to what they perceive you as saying (and feeling, and thinking, and doing), and it's your responsibility to minimize the gap between that and what you actually mean. (I don't mean just you, of course. We all need to do this.)

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Post reply on HN