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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by ClumsyPilot »

mrtksn wrote: post #133
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…

See, the problem is that people are doing all this because they believe that it doesn’t matter. These are not idealists or indoctrinated revolutionaries. No one is going to do anything if it’s not going to bring lulz or cash quickly because nothing matters anyway. All the anti establishment movement is nihilistic in its core. These are not Eastern European kids who dream to finish school and go to Western Europe and…

"All the anti establishment movement is nihilistic in its core"

Okay boys, french revolution, american revolutuon, british revolution were all a nihilistic mistake. Time to give up our hard-earned right and go back to being serfs governed by god-emperror.

The establishment shall never be challanged even if it's chopping off heads, tortuning the unbelievers, raping and burning women for witchcraft.

"Who knows what easily won money could bring"

Did you ask this question in 2008?

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

#353

Post by btmiller »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #259

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, yet I still cannot reason why people truly believe that any service providers owes it to us a 1st Amendment platform. Discord and Reddit are free to select whatever content they find palatable.

It sucks because I found WSB entertaining, but no one here should be mixing up Big Tech with the 1st Amendment.

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

#354

Post by kordlessagain »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #191
ashtonkem wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk of SEC involvement. This admin is probably nowhere near as lenient on this kind of stuff as the last was, and the recent nonsense with GameStop is probably bad enough to attract negative regulatory attention.

That’s the joke. The SEC pursues the mostly harmless while letting the sharks go free. Did they do anything about naked short selling of Overstock stock? Nope, and now that it’s happened again and retail took advantage of a bad trade, the rules suddenly change “to protect the little guy.” It’s disingenuous at a minimum, and crony capitalism when taken to the maximum. Are they doing anything about Nancy Pelosi (her hu…

> Did they do anything about naked short selling of Overstock stock?

http://investors.overstock.com/news-releases/news-release-de...

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

#355

Post by monadic3 »

motohagiography wrote: post #206

Nice one Discord, you just radicalized 2 million WSB subscribers and everyone else who hears about it. Well done.

I would term this "educated". There's nothing radical about what wsb is doing. We just call pump-and-dump firms "hedge funds". This is just democratizing the grift, and the rich assholes don't like it.

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

#356

Post by space_fountain »

boogies wrote: post #310
aeturnum wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of two minds. It's absolutely true that unpopular minorities (of whatever kind) should be able to talk. It's also absolutely true that virality can create dangerous situations which are difficult to control. Instead of banning, which I agree has problems, I favor putting questionable communities in a 'slow mode' where people need to wait to join them (and maybe communications within the community are delayed). Th…

Isn’t the point of democracy that oligarchies lose control to the hoi polloi?

Maybe, but this isn't exactly a new fear. Right or wrong a lot of how for example the US constitution was setup was explicitly about limiting the power of a populist.

But also these discussions aren't really about the government. Full stop the government shouldn't be able to shut sites like parlor down, but part of how society works is by consensus forming and in my opinion social networks really have messed this up. FB and the other big players seem to be realizing this and trying to do better (not sure if they're succeeding), but if other players want to make it harder for this breakdown to happen I say all power to them.

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

#357

Post by CivBase »

> Discord says it did not ban the server for financial fraud — rather, it was banned because it continued to allow “hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings.”

If only Discord - a centralized, online platform - had the power to ban individual users. Too bad. The only reasonable action was to shut down the entire server. That's all they could have possibly done. I'm sure the timing was just coincidental.

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

#358

Post by toomuchtodo »

kordlessagain wrote: post #354
toomuchtodo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the joke. The SEC pursues the mostly harmless while letting the sharks go free. Did they do anything about naked short selling of Overstock stock? Nope, and now that it’s happened again and retail took advantage of a bad trade, the rules suddenly change “to protect the little guy.” It’s disingenuous at a minimum, and crony capitalism when taken to the maximum. Are they doing anything about Nancy Pelosi (her hu…

> Did they do anything about naked short selling of Overstock stock? http://investors.overstock.com/news-releases/news-release-de...

The point is that the SEC’s measures are half hearted at best.

The purpose of the system is what it does, and the capital market operators, institutional participants, and regulators prioritize their interests. This exercise is simply exposing those efforts to daylight for all to see.

Dr Byrne from Overstock puts it better then I can (from your citation): “The SEC once again opts for nerf penalties for financial rapists.”

If one thinks WSB or retail in this are the problem, you haven’t been paying attention.

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

#359

Post by ClumsyPilot »

This is what we get with 'it's a private company, it does what it wants" - callous and capriciois behaviour at best, possibly fraud and corruption.

Our social media firms have no obligation to the public, no matter how many people rely on them.

Consider that 35 Bn are on the line, whichever way the domino falls.

Closing a discord in exchange for financial favours later down the line is not even a crime.

You could hire people or bots to flood the channels with garbage or porn, and get them banned on purpose.

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

#360

Post by bingerman »

ashtonkem wrote: post #186
qqn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thought crossed my mind too, but if so then why?

Risk of SEC involvement. This admin is probably nowhere near as lenient on this kind of stuff as the last was, and the recent nonsense with GameStop is probably bad enough to attract negative regulatory attention.

I thought occupy wall street was backed more by those who identify as democrats or at least leaning that way. And I see this short squeeze just as a more concrete way to f*ck with the big money. Granted, big money rules them all.
Post reply on HN