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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by cik »

There is some brilliant analysis on WSB, some rubbish - the usual. But there was great analysis on this post a few hours ago:

https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6n4ay/the_...

Assuming it (like others) gets taken down, here's a copy+paste with some cleanup:

Note that Discord has had significant investment from private equity funds including FirstMark Capital, Greenoaks Capital Partners, Index Ventures, IVP, Greylock Partners, Benchmark, Accel, General Catalyst, Ridge Ventures, Spark Capital, and Tencent Holdings. At least one of these firms has invested with Point72 Ventures, which recently helped Melvin Capital. So it's not too surprising that strings were pulled to get the Discord channel banned for "hate speech" (which is a very useful brush to tar anyone with, as anyone who challenges it can easily be dismissed as a nazi).

Reddit is owned by Advance Publications, which is owned by Donald Newhouse and the Newhouse family (some details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Newhouse). Fortunately, Newhouse's family office (think a private hedge fund dedicated to investing just the family's money) is pretty far removed from the hedge fund world afaik. The family office's CIO (details here: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1g6j2tztzpb3t...) got her career started in the investment bank world and did not work for hedge funds, at least according to her Linkedin profile. So the Donaldson family has limited motive to stick their necks out and force a ban of this subreddit.

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

#762

Post by simplecto »

ggggtez wrote: post #732
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…

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.

25 years ago there were know-it-alls expressing sentiments like yours.

“The internet is a fad”

It is just nerdy men in their basements.

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

#763

Post by AntiImperialist »

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…

Dream on. If this was to happen, it would have happened in China.

There are many other ways to block these channels. App stores can block them. Hosting providers can block them. ICANN can block them.

Even if you get around that, they can use intelligence to find out who makes and operates these platforms and punish them. Think Silk Road.

There is no way around this. The best way is the traditional way... wait it out until they become weak enough... which is when they won't have as much control and power to censor... and put their heads on a stick and start your own thing.

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

#764

Post by Broken_Hippo »

gadders wrote: post #739
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.

No, it's like a bunch of teenagers came into your coffee shop, and before you could throw them out your coffee shop [in a mall] was permanently closed down by the mall owners. //Been told I'm posting too fast again by the benevolent left wing moderators on HN so this is what I would have replied: "From the comment on WSB that was a story on here before it got flagged off the front page: "We blocked all bad words with…

No, it really isn't.

At most, it is a mall telling a coffee shop owner that they need to take care of a small subset of regulars - the teenagers - because they are regularly using offensive speech. If they don't, the coffee shop is in violation of the malls' leasing agreement. Coffee shop does nothing, so they are evicted.

It isn't like a place got shut down because they let the general public in.

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

#765

Post by rorykoehler »

mrtksn wrote: post #580
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 eas…

I am not arguing that the establishment are the goodies, just that the anti establishment don't do it for higher ideals.

They do. This is a way to fight back and make money. Who wouldn't take that opportunity. I highly recommend this open (motivational) letter on WSB https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6omry/an_o...

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

#766

Post by JacKTrocinskI »

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.

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.

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

#767

Post by lavp »

ggggtez wrote: post #732
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…

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.

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

#768

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Karunamon wrote: post #496
Sunspark wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's because they became a legal risk as they were the primary host of insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol while chanting "Hang Mike Pence!". Also, private business can do whatever they want. 1st amendment only applies to government not private business.

Section 230 absolves them of said risk entirely. Amazon's hand wasn't forced. And quite frankly, I don't buy that accusation. That seems like a convenient, unfalsifiable canard, doubly so when all the tech companies acted in concern. And please stop with the "1st amendment" thing, which nobody in this conversation even mentioned. This observation is off-topic and the very definition of a dead horse in a conversation…

Section 230 only protects against civil suits, not criminal activity.

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

#769

Post by ben509 »

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.

Of course you're censoring them.

You would also be censoring people if you ran an upscale restaurant with a dress code and standards of behavior, or if you didn't let them post ads on the walls.

As long as you make your rules clear and enforce them fairly, censorship and standards of behavior are completely fine.

The very large social media platforms all market themselves as being neutral. They got to be the largest by providing a space for everyone.

So the ask here is "please enforce the rules fairly the way you have always promised you would." Asking a business to deliver on the promises they've made and continue to make is not an entitled attitude.

After all, all these businesses are in complete control of what they promise. If they don't like the old promise, they have a first amendment right to make a new promise that suits them better.

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

#770

Post by mewse »

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…

> The internet needs a true public square

Honest question: why?

Post reply on HN