Discord Bans the r/WallStreetBets Server As Subreddit Goes Private (theverge.com) 194
According to The Verge, Discord has banned the r/WallStreetBets server for allowing "hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings." It did not ban the server for financial fraud. We have also learned that Reddit's WallStreetBets subreddit has been set to private. Here is Discord's full statement: The server has been on our Trust & Safety team's radar for some time due to occasional content that violates our Community Guidelines, including hate speech, glorifying violence, and spreading misinformation. Over the past few months, we have issued multiple warnings to the server admin.
Today, we decided to remove the server and its owner from Discord for continuing to allow hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings.
To be clear, we did not ban this server due to financial fraud related to GameStop or other stocks. Discord welcomes a broad variety of personal finance discussions, from investment clubs and day traders to college students and professional financial advisors. We are monitoring this situation and in the event there are allegations of illegal activities, we will cooperate with authorities as appropriate. UPDATE: Reddit says the subreddit's moderators were the ones to make it private. According to The Verge's Dieter Bohn, the mods now say that "We are unable to ensure Reddit's content policy and the WSB rules are enforceable without a technology platform that can support automation of this enforcement. WSB will be back."
UPDATE #2: r/WallStreetBets is back!
Stories to help you get caught up:
Former SEC Chairman Calls For an Agency Investigation Into Online Stock Trading Platforms
AMC Spikes 260% as Day Traders Ignite Shorted Stocks like GameStop, BlackBerry, and Bed Bath & Beyond
GameStop Jumps After Hours As Elon Musk Tweets Out Reddit Board That's Hyping Stock
GameStop Stock Jumps To New Record
Gaming the System: How GameStop Stock Surged 1,500% In Nine Months
Today, we decided to remove the server and its owner from Discord for continuing to allow hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings.
To be clear, we did not ban this server due to financial fraud related to GameStop or other stocks. Discord welcomes a broad variety of personal finance discussions, from investment clubs and day traders to college students and professional financial advisors. We are monitoring this situation and in the event there are allegations of illegal activities, we will cooperate with authorities as appropriate. UPDATE: Reddit says the subreddit's moderators were the ones to make it private. According to The Verge's Dieter Bohn, the mods now say that "We are unable to ensure Reddit's content policy and the WSB rules are enforceable without a technology platform that can support automation of this enforcement. WSB will be back."
UPDATE #2: r/WallStreetBets is back!
Stories to help you get caught up:
Former SEC Chairman Calls For an Agency Investigation Into Online Stock Trading Platforms
AMC Spikes 260% as Day Traders Ignite Shorted Stocks like GameStop, BlackBerry, and Bed Bath & Beyond
GameStop Jumps After Hours As Elon Musk Tweets Out Reddit Board That's Hyping Stock
GameStop Stock Jumps To New Record
Gaming the System: How GameStop Stock Surged 1,500% In Nine Months
did you think censorship would stop with Trump? (Score:4, Insightful)
Big Money can influence Big Tech. Did you really think censorship would stop with Trump supporters?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
At what point, when the decisions to censure are so consistent and demonstrative of collusion across multiple major media companies, and all against one side of the political spectrum, do you call that de-facto state censorship? The political left is leading us straight to hell because I suppose the end justifies any means lately.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:3)
Also, the US government IS a private oligarchy. Has been for a long time now.
Re:did you think censorship would stop with Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship? It's the same reason as with Trump disciples - do not violate the terms of service. It is your right to be an asshat, but you do not have the right to be an asshat on someone else's server against their wishes. This is not a political issue, it's an issue with following the rules set up by the owner of the service being used.
Re: (Score:3)
This is all this is. As soon as WSB started fucking with some nobody's stocks in a perfectly legal way, they were immediately attacked from all angles.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
When you get "cancelled" they'll call you a Trump supporter too.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
[continued posting] hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings Sounds like it IS Trump supporters
When you get "cancelled" they'll call you a Trump supporter too.
Ah, nice; you played the "they won't let me victimize people" card to try and paint yourself as the victim.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trum (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's referencing that "You said nothing, when they came for $x.... And when they came for you, there was nobody left to speak up for you." saying.
And he is exactly right.
Same thing was Stalin's main game, by the way. Each time shit went bad, another random group was blamed, and off to the gulags with them. Until the "reason" simply became: Gulags had "used up" their slaves (as in: they all had been worked to death) and needed fresh ones.
I think the Capitol raid was a bunch of morons. But making them quiet will not make them vanish magically.
I think Antifaers that actually loot and riot (IFF(!!) they do), are no bit better. Ditto for BLMers. Or any others that harm others.
But if you allow this sort of Stalinist shit here, even if you start with them, you'll gonna end up with you and me somewhere down the line, way earlier than you think. Like Reichskristallnacht early.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it DID go just like that. There were violent Communist Jewish activist groups that caused violence before and after the first World War, which is part of why the German people saw a two pronged threat in the Jews. It's referred to as the great stab in the back, afaicr, but it marked the Jewish people as being both separate and sympathetic to what was already known as a bloody and violent coup, as well as a growing greedy and violent regime (Bolshevik Russia.) [Further notes can be found by studyin
Re: (Score:3)
No, he's referencing that "You said nothing, when they came for $x.... And when they came for you, there was nobody left to speak up for you." saying.
And he is exactly right.
Same thing was Stalin's main game, by the way. Each time shit went bad, another random group was blamed, and off to the gulags with them. Until the "reason" simply became: Gulags had "used up" their slaves (as in: they all had been worked to death) and needed fresh ones.
I think the Capitol raid was a bunch of morons. But making them quiet will not make them vanish magically.
I think Antifaers that actually loot and riot (IFF(!!) they do), are no bit better. Ditto for BLMers. Or any others that harm others.
But if you allow this sort of Stalinist shit here, even if you start with them, you'll gonna end up with you and me somewhere down the line, way earlier than you think. Like Reichskristallnacht early.
Yes, we don't want to "make them quiet" as much as we want to hold them accountable. Many people directly incited violence. Many people did in-fact engage in violence. Why should they not be held accountable? When Joe Biden gives a speech and tells Americans that they should go and storm the capitol building to overturn the results of a free and fair election then I will tell you that Joe Biden should be removed from office.
Re: (Score:3)
That's some serious revisionist history there, lad.
At least wait until those of who remember what actually happened aren't around to refute your horseshit before trying to rewrite the narrative!
Re: (Score:3)
Do us all a favour and go stand in your local city square and deny the holocaust happened. That way we'll all get a break from your endless ignorant posturing.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trum (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trum (Score:5, Insightful)
Celebrating that billionaires are losing money is hate speech according to the billionaires definition of hate speech (which is the one being used).
Re: (Score:3)
Come on, these are real people who are suffering here. Some of them have 3 yachts to maintain.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you accidentally dont signal the right virtue for some pressure group who notice and decide it would be funz to make an example of you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Tru (Score:3)
Since I'm not posting or hosting hate speech, why would I be cancelled?
For the sake of convenience you delegated the responsibility for deciding what is considered hate speech to people who at best consider you to be a pointless generator of carbon dioxide that needlessly damages the planet.
The question you should ask if such people gain power is not "why" - as reasons can alway be invented - but "when" they will come after you.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Tru (Score:2)
"OMGHATESPEECH! YOU SAID "NOT"! "NOT" MEANS N@ZI ODER OF TRUMP!!! CANCEL ANONYMOUSE COWTARD!!?"
Your invalid argument is "Nothing to hide" all over again.
Hint: It is not aboit whar you think you did. It is about what THEY think you did. What they BELIEVE you did! What your enemies can MAKE UP that you did!.
Give me six lines, written by you, and if I cannot stir up a shitstorm from it, that will destroy your life, I owe you $10,000. Otherwise you owe me $10,000. (Assiming you are either famous and I'm a media
P.S.: (Score:2)
Yes, "ODER". They are like lolcats: They can't spell either. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not to decide whether whatever you say is hate speech. It is up to those who want to cancel you for whatever negative comment you made which might be broadly interpreted as something like hate speech or aiding and abetting hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't decide who and when decides you ARE posting or hosting hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just got modded hatespeech. Question is, is it becasue they agreed or disagreed.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I was reading WSB and they said they are doing their best to suppress the prohibited speech but a handful got through. Discord then paints all 50K users with the same brush and bans the group.
Painting the undesirables / deplorables with a broad brush gives cover to strike at the whole group. Not an uncommon tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Racism was invented in 2016 after the election of Trump".
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
It was actually pushed pretty much at the same time as Occupy Wall Street was at its height.
Look up Google Trends and pinpoint the exact moment this term took off wildly. So either racism suddenly exploded in prevalence at the very moment the people came to Wall Street OR the prevalence remained as before but Wall Street pushed a distraction.
Look at any pictures from the OWS protests and who went there. This was a group as diverse as any group can ever get, and they were strongly united in their goals and demands.
And then came the black and white wars and suddenly, people split along racial lines and cannot agree on anything, and it took more than a decade before The People landed the next blow on Wall Street. And it took less than 24 HOURS until The People were ALL painted with the broad brush for that. Because it is now RACIST to fight against domination and immoral trade practices by hedge fonds, banks, billion-dollar bailouts by the taxpayers to the ultra-rich.
"Divide and conquer" as a strategy is alive as ever, and with a diverse population, it is as easy as ever to break them apart and attack each other rather than the group that truly oppresses them. Wall Street rules everything and anything in the Western world. A huge chunk of all the oppression, inequality, cruelty and man-made pain of the entire world originates from that little building in Lower Manhattan. 50, 500, 5 MILLION jobs lost in a single instant for a 3% profit increase do not generate as much regulatory and state attention as SEVEN investors losing a few billion in a crazy scheme from their hedge fonds. That's right. This fund has 7 (seven) investors. All those billions lost are the private wealth of 7 individuals. The entire thing has 32 employees, managing the wealth of 7 people to the tune of umteen Billions, with a capital B. They can lose 99% of everything they ever owned and be still richer than 99% of everyone else. And you watch how quickly that leads to attention from the state, regulatory action, SEC intervention and yes, most likely some arrests.
And then compare it to anything else in the last 50 years. Then you know who rules the planet.
"Racism". Sheesh. The 1% need the "racism" or everyone would sweep them away by midday tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3)
So how many naked shorts do you have? You seem to be pretty keen on attacking people giving illegal traders a well-deserved kick in the balls.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Politics matters.
Hate speech is only hate speech if you have the wrong view point.
But Money matters more than politics.
If your view point threatens Money, then your speech is hate speech.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trum (Score:3, Interesting)
Nah, I think the difference is that the powers that be know that Antifa are toothless tigers that change nothing.
Well, the right wing nutters too, but you cannot just point and laugh at their pathetic attempt at overthrowing the government. You need to at least appear like you are reacting. Same reason republicans already go back to not wanting an impeachment.
Don't forget that during the Snowden leaks, the NSA did track and undermine 43(!!) such groups. Apart from Occupy and the Tea Party, did you even hear
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
Hate speech is hate speech. But beware of whataboutism. That is the lame excuse of sayhing "they are cheating therefore I demand my right to cheat too!"
Also, careful what you think is true. *SOME* leftists and anarchists may be advocating for the overthrow of the government, but not all of them, and not all of those given the label of anarchists are really anarchists. If you feel upset at being called a racist merely because you're right of center, then you should be able to understand why it's stupid to call everyone left of center as being an advocate for violence. Also not true is that the left is happy with hate speech and violence if it has the right viewpoint; almost no one on the left wants the hate speech or violence. You seem to be buying into the whataboutism propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Whataboutism" is not a thing. It's a bad faith silencing tactic [city-journal.org] somewhere between special pleading and moving the goalposts, where the person crying "whataboutism" is attempting to arbitrarily exclude anything and everything that pokes a hole in their argument or false narrative. ESPECIALLY when their entire position is predicated on claims of having a moral highground.
When someone says "You're evil because XYZ, I'm good because I never XYZ" it isn't "whataboutism" but rather a completely legitimate rebutt
Re: (Score:3)
I am not defending my side. My side is myself, not a political party. I criticized the left when they did this, I criticized those who joined in protests and rallies just as an excuse to party and break windows. So now when there's a "but how come nobody every arrested any single rioter?" i only see that as a ridiculous attempt to try and prove that there's bias against conservatives. But there isn't, there is a bias against violence and extremism. Hate speech on the left is wrong, and hate speech on t
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah sure and by that logic Daryl Davis is literally a white supremacist and neonaz i just because antifa said so, and antifa NEVER lies.
What do you call it when huge antifa crowds try to invade a mayor's office with guns, knives, molotov cocktails, and crowbars? What do you call it when antifa attacks mayors in the street and threatens them at home? What do you call it when antifa advocates for book burning and political violence?
Just because people claim they're part of the "anti bad guy squad" doesn't ma
Re: (Score:3)
Criminals?
You can't have it both ways, either MAGA was a terrorist organization trying to destroy the United States or it is possible for some members claiming to be of a group to not be representative of the whole or the accepted philosophy of said group.
Re: did you think censorship would stop with Trump (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, isn't it "toeing the line"?
Like standing on a line, and putting yor toes right up to the line?
Re: (Score:3)
In accordance with a subsequent story tonight, I'll share a personal story, rather than facts, to help bridge our differences (not that we have any on this topic). An English professor of mine once told the class how silly it would be to "tow a line" as he mimed straining to pull on a heavy rope over his shoulder.
Re:did you think censorship would stop with Trump? (Score:4, Insightful)
"hate speech, glorifying violence, and spreading misinformation" -- these ARE Trump supporters, numbnuts.
No, this is selective enforcement, collective punishment and nutpicking. Or do you for a second believe that only Trump supporters daily trade?
Re: (Score:3)
I mean that makes sense. Everyone knows that only hardcore rightwing extremists would support sticking it to wallstreet!
I guess Slashdot is next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would take "don't give a shit" too literally.
Financial fraud? (Score:4, Interesting)
There isn't financial fraud, is anyone being misled and told Gamestop is going to magically make billions of dollars in revenue?
Re:Financial fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I read they're taking advantage of too many shorts. Some investors were betting the price would go down and sold future stock they don't have. Overall, they have to buy and return more stock than are available.
So the actual value of Gamestop has nothing to do with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Financial fraud? (Score:2)
Re: Financial fraud? (Score:2)
Re:Financial fraud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Financial fraud? (Score:4, Interesting)
These are naked shorts which is exactly what you described. They are illegal, and not only are they illegal but you'll be on the hook for an absolute fortune if something like this happens. It's corruption in plain view.
Re: (Score:3)
Shorters are well capable of driving a company into the ground. That subreddit group did a good thing saving a decent company from nasty parasites. Of course shouldn't call them parasites, that would be hatespeech. Anti hatespeech rules work perfectly for you when you are evil and powerful.
Re:Financial fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
No this is much funnier. They were taught about a rather scummy way of playing the USA specific share market. If you pay attention, you can see the scams being run by the banksters, they are not that good or that smart, the system is corrupt. Well, rather like surfing a wave, you can surf the corruption of the USA stock market, you know you bet along with their scummy stock manipulations, you will make money as long as you know how to do your research and pick up on those stock manipulations, when to catch that wave and when to bail out.
It is really ick, well, apparently they found another way which is really rather fun. They picked up on one, that was artificially shorting, forcing drops in share price, ganged up on it and JUST FUCKED IT RIGHT OVER. The actual criminal act was already occurring, a corrupt SEC was letting it occur and along came 4Chan and fucked it over. They prevented a crime and made money doing it, great job guys, you should be damn proud, FUCK EM.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual criminal act was already occurring, a corrupt SEC was letting it occur
What was the crime?
Re:Financial fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
At one point 140% of the stock was up for sale. A lot of people were swimming nude.
Re: (Score:2)
Vigilante justice is an oxymoron. By getting revenge on some traders they can end up hurting others. The free market would normally say that GameStop should fail, instead this silly trading game is propping them up artificially, which means competitors will be hurt. And this is happening with several companies, a lot of them may collapse sooner than expected once the prices plummets back down. Some people may have honestly wanted to short GameStop, it's clearly a failing business model, and they got screw
Re:Financial fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes they are heroes.
When a system has shown that it CANNOT be changed through political means, it must be opposed in other means. This opposition used the system's unfair practices and convolutions against itself to the detriment of people who harvest wealth and sow suffering among people all over the world. They farm this pain and death upon people to increase liquidity by increasing the rate at which money moves through the market so that they can capture a percentage.
They are getting their justice b
So this is how it ends (Score:4, Interesting)
I corresponded with somebody who claims to be a 3-year redditor who used the sub, and he can't get in. Assuming it's true, it's really "private" in the way that an empty lot in Vegas that used to be a casino is a "private club".
Without today's daily posting from /u/DeepFuckingValue we're in the dark as to his notional value at closing (likely far lower tomorrow). It was the community that drove this. Without all their rockets and diamond+hand emoji to encourage holders, this is going to collapse soon. We're all in the dark about the leader's position now. Fear lives in darkness, and fear sells.
I'm still just eating my popcorn, but I'll say this: no $1000 Friday that they were all looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even submit a request to join without getting 500 and 503 errors. Something seems really off about that since the rest of reddit runs fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Update (Score:3)
You can visit /u/DeepFuckingValue's user page and get his daily update [reddit.com] directly, and it's actually on WSB so apparently they're not entirely full of crap about the "private" thing. It looks like they just disabled the portal as it were, and still allow you to get to interesting posts if you know the URL.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, and now you can get to the main page too, although it loads slowly so it looks like they were genuinely handling what amounts to a DoS, and not censoring.
I'd say give 'em a break, but the days of the Slashdot effect are long gone. Sigh... remember that? Now it's the WSB/RH effect I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
47 million (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It ended with Melvin bailed. At that point the main purpose was over and all that was left were people buying it at 300 who stupidly thought there was a compelling reason for it to go higher rather than back to 20 where it belongs.
Melvin bailed before the opening bell, folks had all day to be 'not stupid', anybody holding now is in for a rude surprise. It's down 16% in after hours trading and will be down a lot at the bell tomorrow. People will discover that selling at $200 is only an option if you fi
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no limit to how high it can go. Melvin didn't realize the loss to wipe out the short position ... the shorts are still out there and have obviously used aftermarket trading to try to do a little momentum ignition to get into the money fast. Will people take the bait? Probably, maybe not.
This is a zero sum game ponzi and a lot of people will get hurt, but it can squeeze higher and ruin a lot of shorters along the way too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm given to understand that another crop of shorts came in after Melvin because "hey, now that Melvin's out it's got nowhere to go but down", and then they too were lured in to the squeeze.
It would be pretty funny if major institutions were forced to ban shorting in a few particular stocks in order to protect the shorts from themselves. That's the same rationale that's always used to prevent small investors from doing various things. They'd get a giant "I told you so", from the WSB/RH crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fear lives in darkness.
You thought that peasants would be allowed to make that kind of money at the expense of Wall Street?
Edgelords (Score:5, Interesting)
If the gentleman penning open letters to the media about dumpster handjobs quoted in the previous Slashdot article [slashdot.org] is any indication... The board was at least as full of edgelords engaging in stick-it-to-the-man posturing (and simultaneously chasing social-media celebrity) as it was investment discussion.
So, it doesn't surprise me that there would be "hateful and discriminatory content" there. Does anyone know what was actually being posted there, or is Discord just using this as a pretext? (Strong, loud assertions need not reply - I want the original material.) It's hard to tell, because the single thing I've seen to represent "WallStreetBets" was such a shitshow of a rant.
I fully expect this to get modded down [slashdot.org] like my comment on the previous article, but maybe if I post fast enough someone with actual information might come through and reply .... I can dream, right? ... It'd be like 2002 Slashdot. Come on, we can make it happen.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
such a weird post, you're basically saying that everybody owes you, somebody who is completely out of the loop, an explanation so you can pontificate on it? dude, nobody cares what you think about this, it's best if you remain uninformed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They regularly call themselves autists and retards. Saying things like 'I know I'm an autist but I'm riding this to the moon with the rest of you retards'. No real hate speech at all just admitting they are yoloing money and could lose everything for the memes.
Re:Edgelords (Score:5, Insightful)
I call my closest friends names (in private) that duh, nobody sane would ever say to a random person on the street. Even my wife, quite the professional, calls her closest women friends "bitches" regularly. This is normal human behaviour, and if they see it as wrong, they've clearly never had any close friends, which speaks to how much consideration their opinion should be given.
Re:Edgelords (Score:4, Interesting)
recently a uruguayan football player was suspended by FIFA for saying "gracias, negrito" ("thanks my nig*er") to a friend.
FIFA, the corrupt organization that helps launder billions every year and pretends not to see the slave work in Qatar, suspends a player for using a friendly term with a friend.
(also i had to censor this comment because slashdot decided the N word is "lame")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is both baffling and concerning how the stated conclusions are drawn. The least sinister explanation I can come up with is they've hired some recent Communications grads to do reviews as part of the "Trust & Safety team", who have no previous exposure to internet forums and never
What is "hateful and discriminatory content?" (Score:4, Insightful)
How do they decide this? Do they do a poll of their staff?
Does hateful meant that the content might upset someone who reads it? Or it makes them feel bad?
Does discriminatory mean that people who don't understand the subject matter feel as if they're being discriminated against?
Re:What is "hateful and discriminatory content?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as "an autist", so definitionally zero.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, someone who only paints pictures of numbers not understanding each other certainly sounds like an autist.
What a Time we live In (Score:4, Insightful)
Fundamentals best DD (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the supposed "illegal" activity? (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, what happened is this:
1.Some big wall street investment companies borrowed a bunch of shares in various companies and then sold them at price X expecting the price to fall to the point where they could buy them back at a price lower than X and return them to the borrowers. Perfectly legal short selling.
2.A bunch of people on Reddit looked at public information (information available to everyone trading on the stock market) and noticed that for certain companies, the total amount of stock that had been borrowed by the short sellers was close to (or in some cases above) the total amount of stock that was being traded on the market. Perfectly legal (since no information that wasn't already public was used)
3.These same Reddit people decided collectively to buy all the shares in these companies they could get their hands on. (its also not illegal for some random person on Reddit to decide to buy shares in a certain company if that's what they want to do. Or even for multiple people to decide collectively to buy shares in a certain company)
4.The people who bought these shares are now sitting on them and refusing to sell (also perfectly legal as far as I know, the shares were acquired legally and there is no law I know of that forces someone to sell their legally acquired shares)
Where is the illegality here? Is there some law I don't know about regarding collusion? Was inside information used somewhere? Did someone provide investment advice in a way that breaks the law? Or is this just Wall Street saying that its illegal and hoping the SEC and regulators can find something to back them up (or if necessary, pass new rules around this)
Re:Where is the supposed "illegal" activity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your #1 is only 1/10th the story, the shorting hedge funds were so very greedy, sure of their success as they beat down GME stock, they shorted more stock than were in existence and doubled and tripled down with more margin than they had to cover their short positions. In short (pun intended) their greed made them do something extremely unprofessional, risky, incompetent... and they were majorly screwed over.
No illegality, and of course those fund managers have been manipulating for decades, targeting and driving down values of productive companies, etc. They cooked their own goose this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, naked shorting has been illegal since 2008. It's still possible to do it, but it's basically against the law. Anyone that busts a hedge fund who is naked shorting a stock that is already trading near its lows (which is really stupid) deserves whatever money they can extract from the hedge fund morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your last sentence was non sequitur. The volume tells you nothing about the number of shares being traded.
In the limit case a single share can create that volume at the speeds modern exchanges operate at.
Do not fuck with the upper class (Score:2)
As long as we let the upper class run rampant the little guy will never win. It's time to regulate. They spend a few billion a year convincing us that we shouldn't want regulation ourselves because we'd lose all these opportunities and when we use them they take them away.
Regulate. Everyone. Make Wall Street work for America, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
You damn well know that future regulations will only exist to protect hedge funds.
It's back! Not censored yet, just slammed. (Score:5, Interesting)
The subreddit is back up. The content is intact. It got slammed with bots this afternoon, and a flood of shitposting (which is really saying something over there). The sub gained a million users overnight and is the epicenter of a historic event, so there's a lot to handle. The GME short squeeze is ongoing and the sentiment on the sub seems to be to hold or buy, and to extend puts ("WE LIKE THE STOCK!" is the mantra over there). Although some of the short sellers (apparently including Melvin) seem to be claiming that they've covered already, I'm not convinced - and it doesn't look like others are convinced either. GME may or may not still be shorted beyond the float, it seems. At this point it's hard to tell if the price is being driven more by the short squeeze or simply by insane tulip-like buying pressure. I wouldn't even venture a guess on that.
It'll almost certainly crash, but the saving grace here is that everyone involved seems completely aware of this inevitable fate and accepts the risk. I have not jumped in.
Re: (Score:2)
A Google class C (non-voting, non-dividend) trades at about 1830 dollars. [google.com]
Each GameStop share is one vote. It used to have a dual share structure (class A = 1 vote, class B = 10 votes) but it looks like that was changed into each share = 1 vote [gamestop.com]. So, the all the share owners actually do own a slice of the store. This may be pleasing to the type of person who would have frequented GameStop and has no love lost for big Wall Street operators.
Question: What if I discriminate rationally? (Score:4, Interesting)
Like, based on actual evidence.
Insert any scientific statistical evidence you know here. And insert treating people differently, based on that, after it.
(I mean what else but discriminstion are all those laws along the pattern "All people like pattern X are not allowed because some people like pattern X did bad thingY." Example: Banning all bicycle riders from pedestrian areas because some drive like idiots.... Most of those riders will get harmed evem though they never did anything wrong, and never would.)
Also, I don't think it is reasonable, to expect people to use scientific evidence each time, and discriminate in ways that are not consistent with their personal experience. It *is* their reality, after all.
And ... also ... what if I speak hateful about Hitler? Because: Are you banning hate or not? Or are you not actually caring about hate itself, but about emotions that do not align with your ideologies,... while loving that opportunity for convenient virtue signaling?
TL;DR: This whole thing is ridicuous from the ground up. Everythinf about it and all "sides". Nobody thinks about it for five damn philosophical minutes. Nobody seems even mentally capable of it. It is a whole host od social memetic cancer. And unless people acrualy get a clue, nobody is qualified to even talk about this.
It's back up and it ain't over...... (Score:5, Funny)
NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE
First off, Wallstreet bets is back, WSB booted the million bots that signed up today and started spamming other ticker symbols to try and confuse everyone.
As for me, I bought and sold and bought and sold and am now holding for the short squeeze.
Will the price skyrocket? Who knows?
Is this fun? Oh Yeah!
Is this history in the making? Oh Yeah!
Is this the beginning of the little guy finally running with the Wallstreet Big Boys? (A hesitant maybe)
Are the wrong people losing money for the right reasons? (Oh yeah) Note: The institutional investors and hedge funds should never lose money and if they do, they should receive and immediate bailout from taxpayers or deficit spending. They will either get a bailout or some new SEC rules will appear to try and stop the little guy from winning again when the big guys do a deal that is absolutely ludicrous.
Will Game Stop live to fight another day? (I think so)
Is the stock market a corrupt casino? (I am pretty sure it is, just ask the good fellows who crashed the market in 2008 with complex derivatives and took down the housing market and caused a recession?)
Will there be a movie? (If the stock hits $1000, there will be a movie)
Will this be studied by future economic students? (Yes)
Will there be a song written about this? (I hope so to commemorate this event)
The dust probably won't settle until next week but it should be an interesting ride.
3 2 1
Trading Places (Score:3)
Nobody going to mention the movie Trading Places?
Re: (Score:2)
These Plebes don't know what a P/E ratio is, or revenue.