6 ms·

Someone likely paid the platforms and/or admins to take them down

by sickygnar 6y ago

dawnerd 6y ago
Or an investor.
LMYahooTFY 6y ago
What is your assertion based on?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I'm guessing: probability estimates. Realistically speaking, they had every opportunity to enact this ban before, and freedom to do so after the #gamestonk bonanza dies down. So why act now?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Realistically speaking those particular forums weren't major news stories and flooded with new users (many of them not working for hedge funds!) who don't like what they see before. From the point of view of someone with no stake in the outcome, the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action
    - the8472 6y ago
      So rules are only enforced when things are in the news? > the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        > So rules are only enforced when things are in the news? Sure, punitive sanctions are more likely to be taken when the volume of complaints goes up, the trolling goes up and the forum ceases to be an insider's club and starts being representative of how your platform is perceived by the general public. That's been the case for every platform ever and particularly recently, with no conspiracies involving Wall St bribery required. > That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant. It's an obvious retort to the suggestion Discord could have delayed enforcement action until after it blew over [if they weren't in cahoots with Wall St]. The only reason to delay when they're getting complaints now is to help one set of their users unload financial positions onto another, so keeping it open until that happens shouldn't be a consideration precisely because it's irrelevant to their stated reason for the ban. (I mean, I'm sure Discord had internal discussions about the legal liability of [not] taking action whilst people pumped stocks too, but the answer was likely 'none whatsoever, do whatever you think is best for your reputation')
madeofpalk 6y ago
Did you're read the article, and the statement Discord put out? I think the stated reason is the believable. > 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.”
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Yeah. I’m no fan of Wall Street but there is definitely a lot of rabid vitriol around, for example, Citron, and I really would not be surprised if people were stepping over the line and calling for violence.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Excuses like this have been leveraged for centuries to oust people who the Big Guys don't like. Not saying it isn't true, but what I am saying is that it puts in stark relief all the servers they are NOT banning due to similar/worse behavior.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  It is a shitty, disgusting and cowardly excuse, but I bet they're gonna go with "autist" and "retard" and etc. if they stick to that line.
  - cmorgan31 6y ago
    The discord for WSB was a bit more than just ablest slurs but the timing of this is just a bad business move unless there's more to it. It doesn't make any real sense from a liability aspect unless they were going to plan some kind of insurrection against the government... you can just as easily ban them for this same reason "multiple warnings" next week. There had to have been external pressure on someone higher up or someone with a stake in the game.
- samatman 6y ago
  Hah. How long are we going to keep falling for this same shtick? Seriously, are you naïve or is this bad faith? I can't tell anymore.

Someone likely paid the platforms and/or admins to take them down

dawnerd 6y ago

Or an investor.

LMYahooTFY 6y ago

What is your assertion based on?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
I'm guessing: probability estimates. Realistically speaking, they had every opportunity to enact this ban before, and freedom to do so after the #gamestonk bonanza dies down. So why act now?
- notahacker 6y ago
  Realistically speaking those particular forums weren't major news stories and flooded with new users (many of them not working for hedge funds!) who don't like what they see before. From the point of view of someone with no stake in the outcome, the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action
  - the8472 6y ago
    So rules are only enforced when things are in the news? > the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      > So rules are only enforced when things are in the news? Sure, punitive sanctions are more likely to be taken when the volume of complaints goes up, the trolling goes up and the forum ceases to be an insider's club and starts being representative of how your platform is perceived by the general public. That's been the case for every platform ever and particularly recently, with no conspiracies involving Wall St bribery required. > That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant. It's an obvious retort to the suggestion Discord could have delayed enforcement action until after it blew over [if they weren't in cahoots with Wall St]. The only reason to delay when they're getting complaints now is to help one set of their users unload financial positions onto another, so keeping it open until that happens shouldn't be a consideration precisely because it's irrelevant to their stated reason for the ban. (I mean, I'm sure Discord had internal discussions about the legal liability of [not] taking action whilst people pumped stocks too, but the answer was likely 'none whatsoever, do whatever you think is best for your reputation')

madeofpalk 6y ago

Did you're read the article, and the statement Discord put out? I think the stated reason is the believable. > 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.”

bobthepanda 6y ago
Yeah. I’m no fan of Wall Street but there is definitely a lot of rabid vitriol around, for example, Citron, and I really would not be surprised if people were stepping over the line and calling for violence.
uoaei 6y ago
Excuses like this have been leveraged for centuries to oust people who the Big Guys don't like. Not saying it isn't true, but what I am saying is that it puts in stark relief all the servers they are NOT banning due to similar/worse behavior.
unethical_ban 6y ago
It is a shitty, disgusting and cowardly excuse, but I bet they're gonna go with "autist" and "retard" and etc. if they stick to that line.
- cmorgan31 6y ago
  The discord for WSB was a bit more than just ablest slurs but the timing of this is just a bad business move unless there's more to it. It doesn't make any real sense from a liability aspect unless they were going to plan some kind of insurrection against the government... you can just as easily ban them for this same reason "multiple warnings" next week. There had to have been external pressure on someone higher up or someone with a stake in the game.
samatman 6y ago
Hah. How long are we going to keep falling for this same shtick? Seriously, are you naïve or is this bad faith? I can't tell anymore.