841–850 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would only be a fair parable if your coffee shop was the only coffeshop in the entire city or that it exists like 1-3 others but you all talk with eachother on the phone and collectively agree to deny those people service.
And that still wouldn’t be censorship.
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…
> It does feel like a watershed moment regarding hedge funds Let's wait six months. This story is being badly reported all over. I suspect the hedge funds will mostly be fine. >You get people to invest in a stock that is expected by the industry to go belly up. Seriously. It's that easy. It's not illegal. Yes, it is, it's an abusive short squeeze, which is market manipulation.
Right. All of a sudden the WSJ is publishing an article about the founder getting kicked out where he claims the subreddit is full of white supremacists. Really? Give me a break. FT is claiming many are “alt-right” all of a sudden. Bad reporting all around.
> Yes, it is, it's an abusive short squeeze, which is market manipulation.
I’m not sure I buy it, and I’m not sure there is a fundamental difference between dinner club (as Matt Levine wrote) where hedge fund managers talk about their favorite stock picks and people on an open forum openly talking about companies that they think should be purchased or sold. Is it not market manipulation when a short seller publishes a scathing report, or when a CEO goes on CNBC or Bloomberg and gives a good opinion of their company or a different one? Which has more reach?
I think the most sensible and straightforward thing is further regulation of hedge funds and large financial institutions. If they are going to act irresponsibly and then cry about it, well, maybe they need adult supervision? The positions of hedge funds versus, uh, retail traders on an Internet forum is an unequal one from the start, anyway.
Not to mention the ridiculous media blitz coming from institutions. Jeez what a way to really create a lack of trust and further erode our democracy. If I find a drug dealer working for the FT can I write an article about how some people who work there are drug dealers? It’s obvious what they’re doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not quite that easy. You have to find a stock that's overshorted (>100% of shares here) irresponsibly (if they used e.g puts they'd be fine), buy a lot and hold it long enough. Also quite likely WSB money wasnt enough and it's only because other hedge funds jumped in that we got here. What Melvin did was risky and avoidable.
The stock doesn’t actually need to be shorted that much. We’re seeing the same thing happen with Koss, BB, and AMC right now. The infamous VW short squeeze was also caused by significantly less short interest: https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a35340727/heres-...
VW in particular was shorted much less but something like 90+% of the shares were accounted for between Porsche and Germany to reach the accounted for shares + shorts position of over 100%.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Mmm is this a comment from the 60s, Chinese people don't dream to come to America, we go back to our homeland to make money sorry to burst buble
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would only be a fair parable if your coffee shop was the only coffeshop in the entire city or that it exists like 1-3 others but you all talk with eachother on the phone and collectively agree to deny those people service.
There are many coffee shops in the city and there are plenty of social media platforms online (Youtube, Facebook, Tiktok, Reddit, Twitter, Whatsapp, Telegram, Twitch, Pinterest, WeChat, Snapchat). Also, there's really no evidence they're coordinating. If the guys I kick out of my coffee shop walk down the road and start shouting Retard at each other in a different coffee shop they're going to get kicked out of that o…
Discord and Reddit in this case, even if they're not banned from Reddit yet, is their only means of communicating with eachother. Sure people can create some kind of group / channel on another platform, but if they are banned from one there is no way for them to know where to go.
Obviously the group is going to be mostly dispanded when they are banned or removed. I would say this is a kind of censorship. If they would've been given some time, like a week or a month before the banning then I would agree it would not be censorship because then they can assemble somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to misunderstand the purpose of moderation entirely. Moderation serves many purposes, but only one of them is to save your delicate eyes from seeing things you don't want to see. Perhaps the more important one are things like: ensuring that your social media service doesn't have a bad reputation so that people other than disaffected white guys will actually want to use it. If your site is overrun with porn…
This seems to be easily solvable by just making moderation an opt-out default. HN itself has the "showdead" setting, which defaults to false. Anyone who forms their opinion on a community after deliberately turning off moderation is either a moron or trying to intentionally discredit that community.
Social media without meaningful moderation (ie. FB and Twitter before the latest crackdown) was an error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It does feel like a watershed moment regarding hedge funds Let's wait six months. This story is being badly reported all over. I suspect the hedge funds will mostly be fine. >You get people to invest in a stock that is expected by the industry to go belly up. Seriously. It's that easy. It's not illegal. Yes, it is, it's an abusive short squeeze, which is market manipulation.
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
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?
Never thought its gonna get to a point where i have to explain individual liberty in the west