6 ms·
Facebook shuts popular stock trading group amid GameStop frenzy
- jonny383 6y agoFunny how all of the people spurting out "It's a private company they can do what they want" after banning Donald Trump have now changed their mind about big tech censorship. The precedent of accepted censorship was set and accepted. Deal with it.
- Rapzid 6y agoI haven't changed my mind.
- pbourke 6y agoI’m far more concerned with deleting an entire group than a single account.
- ttt0 6y agoThat's what they've been doing for quite a while, but no one cared.
- jonny383 6y agoIsn't that the intended purpose of banning Trump? To delete his supporters communication platform?
- pbourke 6y agoHis supporters seem to be continuing to use Twitter.
- perryizgr8 6y agoHow about deleting an entire platform? Were you concerned about that?
- pbourke 6y agoI don’t use Parler, but I don’t think it should be constructively banned from the internet in the US, if that’s what your referring to. Insofar as people are committing crimes on Parler, I hope that they will be investigated.
- GNU_James 6y agoJust move to Matrix already... https://matrix.org/clients/ https://matrix.org/clients/
- bufferoverflow 6y agoDoes it have a web front end where I can see public discussions without registration? If not, I'm not interested.
- anticensor 6y agoIt has this: https://app.element.com https://app.element.com
- dang 6y agoFor pointers to other vertices of this story graph, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543. (Sorry for the annoying repetition:) Large threads are paginated. To see all the comments, you'll need to click More at the bottom of each page, or do this sort of thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952659&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952659&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952659&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952659&p=3
- paxys 6y ago> The notification, seen by Reuters, said without detail that the group violated policies on “adult sexual exploitation.” That's some bullshit right there. Spin the wheel, come up with a random charge, and ban the entire community with zero recourse and no way to appeal.
- TeeMassive 6y agoLaughs in conservative. It musts be your first time.
- morlockabove 6y ago"It's a private company, they can do what they want!"
- mattigames 6y agoI don't think the people who came up with that rule really accounted for one company becoming the main channel of communication for the human race.
- morlockabove 6y agoPeople were using the argument five years ago, 4,3,2, yesterday. Whenever one of these monopolies does something to A that B approves of and A objects, B comes out with IAPCTCDWTW. People generally seem love to make excuses for Power when it's stepping on people they don't like, and are then somehow surprised when Power turns around and crushes them.
- mattigames 6y agoI never mentioned no sides so I'm not following you here; but to answer to your argument even if the government gets control of FB and decides to silence some group I support (e.g. homosexuals) and therefore I disagree with such decision I still would prefer that control of a main communication platform to be in hands of the government and not random executives, in such case my focus (and people's) would be to have a less homophobic government where at least my vote counts and not some random execs that I have no minor influence upon.
- andy_ppp 6y agoIt was fun when Trump was banned from Twitter, but now I’m mad about WSB!!
- asiando 6y agoPeople downvoted you but there’s some truth here. There’s only one thing that comes to mind: > First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. > Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. > Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. I know, I know. Nobody is killing anyone, so let them close any group they don’t like. It’s not a problem amirite?
- abootstrapper 6y agoIt’s more like: First they came for the fascist but I didn’t speak up because fuck those guys. Then they came for the meme stock traders, and what the fuck even is this timeline. Bottom line is corporations are self serving, and the poem doesn’t really hold up to what is happening.
- systemvoltage 6y agoI can see why shutting down far right wing extremist groups can be justified (or for that matter, far left wing extremists as well). But some folks meme'ing about stocks? Come on. Edit: If you're spewing hatred on me for some kind of retribution, shame on you. This isn't a place for that.
- morlockabove 6y agoIt turns out that handing the public square to centralized control ends badly. Who knew! You reap what you sow.
- scrollaway 6y agoYou know, you can be against Facebook providing a platform to extremist/neo-nazis groups, and also think Facebook has overall too much power and presence. It's not "you reap what you sow" and you're not handing GP some funny "gotcha". It's just plain obvious decency. Some people don't get that, and then they're surprised that most normal humans think it's suspicious, as if they don't get it on purpose. Then they get upset because they start to look like nazi sympathizers. That is what "you reap what you sow" looks like.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> You know, you can be against Facebook providing a platform to extremist/neo-nazis groups, and also think Facebook has overall too much power and presence. People aren’t really upset about deplatforming extremists/neo-nazis. They’re upset about the deplatforming of mainstream groups and falsely labeling them “neonazi extremists”
- morlockabove 6y agoIf you put too much comparative value on keeping the boot on Bad People's necks, you'll help close off methods to shift influence away from e.g. Facebook. If a lot of people move to e.g. the fediverse facebook equivalent, that shifts power away from facebook and makes it harder to deplatform people. So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it.
- throwaway122378 6y agoFirst it was covid doctors, then conservatives, and now your money. Still okay with “private” companies making their own rules?
- jkewnfjkwnef 6y ago> Facebook suspended his group on Jan. 7 after labeling it a “dangerous organization,” according to correspondence seen by Reuters, though the company reinstated its privileges after he appealed to contacts there. What a joke. They're not even pretending to do it under the guise of hate speech anymore.
- Avicebron 6y agoThe definition of a "dangerous organization" now is whether it can lighten wealthy wallets
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoWhen the music stops, it's also going to lighten the wallets of many of the amateur investors. These groups quickly degrade into memes about how buying and holding these stocks forever will make people rich. They chastise anyone who even considers mentioning an exit strategy. When the stock begins to decline, early investors in these groups will quietly exit while using the group to convince others to "buy the dip" and have "diamond hands". Don't believe the narrative that this is a simple transfer of wealth from wealthy banks to Redditors. It's also a massive transfer of wealth from Redditors arriving late to the game who aren't in on the joke to those who are.
- Avicebron 6y agoThat's not really what this is about though. It's not about pardon the pun..Robin hooding the wealth from the rich to the poor, it's about casting light on practices that are disproportionately in favor of the wealthy. Hence bans on groups trying to do this in clever ways.
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoThat’s the narrative they’re using to convince new players to hold the bag. It’s not true, though. Do you really think Redditors are YOLOing thousands of dollars into a stock with the understanding that they’re going to lose most of it? Are they really spending thousands of dollars on some laughs? No, they’ve been convinced that this trade is free money. They’ve also been convinced this money is coming from evil bad guys, ignoring the influx of cash from fellow Redditors.
- adamnemecek 6y agoThis whole story feels like a turning point.
- cheeze 6y agoThis is the turning point? Not press releases from congresspeople? What!?
- adamnemecek 6y agoI mean the GameStop thing as a whole not this FB thing.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoYes, congresspersons are so last century.
- spoonjim 6y agoCongresspeople are not really relevant anymore. Their slavish devotion to party makes them actually hold very little power.
- always_left 6y agoI wonder if they were hyping Facebook stocks would this be the same result.
- Saul_C 6y agoThis is Freedom of Expression
- thereare5lights 6y agoWhy did they even get in involved in this? This doesn't even involved anyone being in imminent harm.
- rubyist5eva 6y agoZucc's buddies called in a favor.
- blhack 6y agoWhy do they even pretend to give a reason anymore. Just close it. Nobody is buying the "hate speech" "adult sexual exploitation" whatever arguments, and honestly it just makes facebook look like liars. Just delete the group and say: "It violated our terms of service". That's probably also a lie, but at least it's a little less obnoxious.
- ttt0 6y agoThe thing that gets me is that they don't ban specific people, it's always the entire community that gets taken down. But totally nothing to see here, guys.
- Technically 6y agoYou can't scale moderation with a social network without making serious sacrifices on moderation quality.
- MichaelApproved 6y agoIf you manage a community that is even remotely controversial, you’d better start asking your community for their email address, as an emergency backup. Possibly even ask for their phone number. Though it's tempting, don't message them at all. Just hang onto it. Only use it to if your community is banned and you need to start over somewhere else. Then email/text them the location of the new community.
- mmazing 6y agoMeh, in my opinion (and probably legally too) they can do whatever they want, it's their platform. Not that this was your intent but wanted to comment on what I've seen a few places around the internet - I've seen various comments online comparing this to Robinhood shutting down people's ability to buy certain stocks, or their clearinghouse forcing it, etc. I don't think they are comparable.
- ketamine__ 6y agoAre there any good decentralized message boards? Biggest question seems to be how does the community deal with spam (and spam taking a large amount of space). But other than that I could see a lot of people willing to host nodes for free.
- flukus 6y agoEmail mailing lists/discussion groups. Decentralized and already familiar to everyone from the HN crowd to grandma.
- doomlaser 6y agoSome people might remember Hotline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotline_Communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotline_Communications Independent forums might be due for a comeback as well, with modern technological amenities
- tectonic 6y agoHotline! What a great piece of software. I learned to code as a teenager in a hotline group dedicated to RealBASIC. Such fond memories of that decentralized platform.
- LegitShady 6y agoYour hosting can be attacked too, so that's another complication.
- superkuh 6y agoI spent all of high school on hotline servers but it was never very decentralized. Not compared to a real federated protocol. It's client-server where servers register themselves with trackers which keep lists of server and return the list to clients when they ask. KDX is the "modern" open source implementation of the Hotline/Caracho concept. I still think usenet is the way to go. It's a robust federated system. Sure most people will use a few servers but there's always the easy open to switch to a new one. I even posted on misc.invest.stocks today using eternal-september.org text only access.
- thisgoodlife 6y agoI find it scary that those big tech companies are trying their best to put everything under their control. I understand that they are private companies. But does that mean they can do whatever they want and get away with it?
- Simulacra 6y agoDepends on which argument you agree with. "It's a private company it can do whatever it wants" makes it seem like yes, they can. However Facebook is answerable to two distinct groups: The people who use the service, and the stock market. If people stopped using Facebook then it's possible that would push ad revenue down, which would then push the stock price down, which might then incite the investors to demand Facebook make changes to bring people back...so the ad revenue will go back up, which will push the stock price back up, and on and on. On the other hand, Facebook is a lot like Microsoft back in the 90s. It wasn't the only computer company. It wasn't the only operating system. But the sheer size and market influence allowed it to act unchecked.
- pbourke 6y ago> However Facebook is answerable to two distinct groups: The people who use the service, and the stock market. Three, if you include regulators.
- Bakary 6y agoI'm hoping this will create an impetus for social change. Occupy Wall Street failed but now that people's nihilism is increasingly justified and living standards drop, I doubt things will go on as before.
- mike00632 6y ago"Let's protest because we can't sink our money into GameStop stock after seeing a stock promoter online hype up the stock!" Do we forget that GameStop is a mall retailer that sells physical copies of video games? This is not the next Amazon or Saudi Aramco. Anyone who is convinced to put their money in GameStop was likely tricked by someone with a financial interest (and that was probably a rich person). This entire narrative about retail investors taking billions from evil hedge funds is just that, a narrative. It's not even true; Melvin got rid of their short position.
- perl4ever 6y ago>likely tricked by someone with a financial interest (and that was probably a rich person) Do we know Melvin got rid of their short position? They might be in a position to get an article published saying they did, while being able to say later it was fake news, and covering it as the stock plummeted today. The article I saw I think had weaselly language about not being able to confirm the losses.
- mike00632 6y agoSo don't believe what the news says, but instead go with online rumors from stock promoters... You're literally suggesting a revolution based on this logic.
- throwaway3699 6y agoYes I trust edgy trolls on Reddit more than the entire media establishment. They are more trustworthy.
- joshuaengler 6y agoThe issue with Facebook you see is that they (along with most huge tech corps) have become this weird amalgamation between fascist and communist. They're a private company that controls WAY too many assets, with way too much unregulated/unchecked power. They want equality for all, but yet they're willing to suppress every man's voice in order for their own mission, whatever that is. Their agenda ranges from personal freedom and free speech suppression to political campaigning; and far beyond the reach of both of those. When a company gets too big and consolidates too much power for themselves their own absolute power corrupts absolutely. Facebook here has the power to regulate their own version(s) of the markets due to personal fear that their stock will be affected by the every man's voice and opinion. They fear being oppressed by the people, so they oppress the people's ability to have any control over them. For a publicly traded company this is insane, and it shows how fake everything really is behind the scenes. Only a few out there are truly allowed to trade on good information and swing markets their way. Break up big tech.
- babesh 6y agoIf you think that big tech is bad, wait till you learn about Wall Street, the military industrial complex, the two political parties, the medical industry, etc, etc, etc...
- Const-me 6y agoFacebook is a natural monopoly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly No matter how they treat users, people won't leave due to network effect. I don't believe the problem is solvable with more tech or free market. I think the only way forward is political, with laws and regulations. Long ago railroad networks, water pipes networks, and landline phone networks were private companies free to do whatever they please with the property they own. It's time to add social networks to the list.
- threatofrain 6y agoIt's much better to argue that FB is a monopoly than a natural monopoly. It's not at all obvious why FB cannot instantly die like all social media companies before. I'm not sure what inspiration is hoped by linking to Wikipedia on a fiercely discussed issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
- Const-me 6y ago> It's much better to argue that FB is a monopoly than a natural monopoly. Many laws and public discussions related to monopolies in general, as opposed to natural monopolies, are focused on pricing. FB can argue by saying "that's not applicable because our product is free for users". > It's not at all obvious why FB cannot instantly die like all social media companies before. About 35% of global population use facebook at least once a month. Global population counts newborn babies, and 10-15% of adults who can't read or write. None of the prior social media companies achieved that size of their network.
- wvenable 6y agoThe question is, what is Facebook a monopoly of? If you say "social media" it's almost self-referential. Facebook's customers are advertisers. Facebook is ultimately a media company competing with other media companies for eyeballs.
- blahblahblogger 6y ago> Long ago railroad networks, water pipes networks, and landline phone networks were private companies free to do whatever they please with the property they own. I agree about social networks, but I'm not sure how good of an argument this is. In the US all those things (railroads, water networks, landline) have gone to crap.
- babesh 6y agoIt’s time to hack/weaponize censorship. Any group you don’t like you infiltrate and add hate speech. Like China when you denounced the neighbor you had a grudge with as bourgeoisie. If you don’t think this isn’t already happening, you are completely wrong.
- anotheraccount9 6y agoMeanwhile, lots of questionable groups still thrive on Facebook.
- someonehere 6y agoIf people are wondering what other options there out there to protect WSB and other groups from obnoxious band like this, might I suggest Mastodon? You can self host and be a part of the network. The tricky part to replicate the user capacity for WSB would probably require a lot of build out and probably someplace the servers can’t be killed by the ISP or data center (Russia?). I along with a few other friends have messaged the moderators and a few other notable figures on Reddit about this. Nobody has responded for obvious reasons. Would like to see them continue doing what they’re doing outside the grasp of the money strings controlling politics and the economy.
- forgingahead 6y agoI find it striking that a solution proposed at times like this is to depend on infrastructure in a foreign land, specifically Russia. This is not a dig at you at all - in fact you're probably right, but it is certainly striking that after all these years, people are seriously suggesting Russia as a "freer" alternative to American/Anglo systems.
- pbourke 6y agoI’m sure it’s as free as a bird until you begin to criticize Putin ...
- deft 6y agoWell luckily the groups fleeing to host servers there have no reason to do that. When they want to criticize Putin they can do it from American servers.
- forgingahead 6y agoIsn't that the irony though? You can continue to use American infrastructure, be it for communication, finance, etc, unless you irritate the wrong people. There are no lack of "Putins" in Anglo countries as well.
- 6y ago
- perryizgr8 6y agoFacebook is a non governmental company and is absolutely free to decide who is allowed on their platform. If wsb don't like it they can just go and make their own Facebook.
- Karsteski 6y agoThis is such a tone deaf comment that I'm surprised people are still making it. This problem is far deeper than just "go make your own Facebook". It has gotten to the point that these giant corporations are able to influence elections in whatever direction they think is "right", they are able to shut down speech, on what is now a de facto town square, and they are able to deplatform their own competition based on accusations of harbouring "hate speech activists". Note that the term hate speech is relative, poorly defined and can mean anything, based on the perspective of the individual. What is hate speech to you is not hate speech to another, and vice versa. I urge you to think more deeply on the topic.
- perryizgr8 6y agoSorry it wasn't clear, my post was supposed to be a clever commentary on the situation a few weeks ago when twitter/fb/amazon were blatantly banning people and organisations based on political ideology. And people over here were giving this argument in support, but now seem to be outraged. > It has gotten to the point that these giant corporations are able to influence elections in whatever direction they think is "right", they are able to shut down speech, on what is now a de facto town square, and they are able to deplatform their own competition based on accusations of harbouring "hate speech activists". I agree 100%. Twitter/FB/Google are too big, they are monopolies. They must be held to a higher standard or be broken up. Either become "public squares" where my freedom is protected or get broken up into 100 different networks.
- wintorez 6y agoWhen did the war start and why nobody announced it?
- kyrieeschaton 6y agoThe position of essentially every platform is that you can shut down however you wish to draw a circle (a person, a subforum, a website, a business, a demographic) as long as you can prove someone inside of it said nigger, or whatever your "content violation" du jour is. The natural effect of this is Soviet/Chinese style effective bans on more than a certain number of people congregating in one place unless they are explicitly approved.
- forgingahead 6y agoThere used to be a guy on Twitter/Facebook/other social media who kept harping about how the system was rigged....
- mhh__ 6y agoWho?
- thebigspacefuck 6y agotealronaldcrumpet or something like that
- breckenedge 6y agoThe name rhymed with Pump and Dump?
- all2 6y agoSome orange guy. Everyone said he was bad. He's gone now. Not really sure where he went.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago> used to
- suyash 6y agoAfter he is gone, it's going to get much worse on social media, this just the start
- kibwen 6y agoYeah, real funny that guy, if only someone would put him in a position of ultimate power I'm sure he'd un-rig the system real quick, and definitely not spend four years with his thumb up his ass laughing with his rich buddies at the gullible rubes who appointed him.
- convery 6y ago
- fireeyed 6y agoThe veil of Democracy is coming loose revealing the Oligarchy (I include politicians and their government & media buddies in it)
- Sleepytime 6y agoThat would be the state. It's a loose alliance between the corporations, media, government, and religion. They are generally content to try and gain control of the power structure under the guise of weakening one branch or the other, but they never actually attempt to weaken the whole system.
- stephc_int13 6y agoI don't know much about all this gambling stuff and to be honest I don't care. But what happened and what is happening is, in my opinion, more important than this affair. It shows where power is, in case we didn't notice yet. And it shows that we should collectively act to regain some of this power, we gave them for free...
- WClayFerguson 6y agoTo all the progressives who were in favor of the BigTech censorship as long as it was aimed at conservatives, I have a question: "Do you finally get it now?"
- remoteLily 6y agoThis is free speech in action. Sites should be able to moderate as they see fit. In return, their users are free to protest the removal of some speech, or protest the tolerance of some speech. And then companies respond to those protests. The government doesn't get involved. It's messy, but there's no way around the mess without forcing companies to host content they don't want to host. Freedom of association is as important as freedom of speech.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoShould this ability for arbitrary censorship apply to ISPs, text messages, email, and phone companies too, according to you? I have a feeling if phone companies censored text messages of conservatives the liberals would cheer it on. Liberals are unable to see Tyranny unless it's biting them in the face. As long as it's someone else getting mauled they're there to watch with pop corn and a coke.
- remoteLily 6y agoShould privately owned sites be allowed to control what content they display or should they be forced to accept whatever their users post? And we're talking about endpoints, not the carriers represented by ISPs and phone companies. It's funny to me when conservatives talk about the sanctity of private property, and then want to force the owners and publishers of certain sites to have zero control over their own property. You can't have it both ways. Also funny to me that conservatives censor like mad in their own properties. Parler, /r/conservative, RedState, and too many others to count, would delete posts from people like me on sight. Do you consider that censorship too, or is that acceptable?
- 6y ago
- RedComet 6y ago"Shut it down."
- exabrial 6y agoWhen a private platform has a monopoly, censorship sucks. It's time to break these companies up
- jdlyga 6y agoFacebook is 100% exploitative
- yrgulation 6y agoIt took them longer to shut down conspiracy theory, violent, or extremist groups than it took them to shut down a stock trading group. Now this is censorship.
- andyyv 6y agoFirst they came for conservatives, everybody sheered here. So, how does it feel to be unwanted? Karma...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 22c 6y ago>We were first on the picking tree to be cut off because we are on Facebook, not a free platform like Reddit Members of /r/TheDonald would likely disagree with this sentiment.
- Triv888 6y agowow, they didn't do much research for this article...
- themihai 6y agoThis is it guys...now ban anyone who talks dirty or buys stocks you don't want them to buy
- hoka-one-one 6y agoSarcasm is the song of a bird who's grown to love his cage.
- cambalache 6y agoThe big Internet challenge for the next 3-4 years is to completely decentralize the big social networks. It is not a matter of technology though. You need people rioting, the governments having the balls to do it or a combination of both.
- bufferoverflow 6y agoIt is a matter of technology. Groups that get banned on regular social media will move to these new next gen social networks, and (almost) everyone else will stay on the old ones. Giant echo chambers will form. But only the new ones will be uncensorable and free.
- cambalache 6y ago> It is a matter of technology. Groups that get banned on regular social media will move to these new next gen social networks, and (almost) everyone else will stay on the old ones. I dont understand what you think technology is.
- robbmorganf 6y agoQuick question: is anything stopping GameStop itself from authorizing a whole bunch new shares and selling them at this all-time-high price? I understand the Redditors trust each other, but what makes them think they can trust GameStop?
- isatty 6y agoThey can but they have not yet. They’re not going to be able to do it by 29th (doubtful) and it’s a day of max pain. On the other hand, pissing off a whole bunch of your customers and investors does not seem like a wise idea. Hell, they’ve more money to buy things now. I should also mention that the GME balance sheet wasn’t even bad back in July, and they’re doing everything to improve it, even without the short squeeze (think closing stores etc).
- Yoofie 6y agoI don't know much about this but apparently they can. I read [1] that AMC did just that and raised money to survive the rest of the year based on the inflated valuation. My AMC info from Matt Levine, under the "AMC ATM" section of the article. [1]:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-28/knowing-when-to-sell-gamestop-stock-at-the-top-is-impossible https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-28/knowin...
- mitch3x3 6y agoI believe they are limited to issuing 100k at a time and spaced out much larger than is currently needed to take advantage of the situation. This is all part of the calculated short squeeze.
- tamaharbor 6y agoJust another reason to dislike Facebook.
- fortran77 6y agoFirst they came....
- hintymad 6y agoI seriously wonder what people will do when enough of them stop trusting the system. The elites really think that driving people cynical will serve them any good?
- null0pointer 6y agoHopefully this serves as a wake up call to all those people who previously supported censorship. Up until now it has mostly been groups that are extremely difficult to defend because discussions around them always got mired in politics. Finally a relatively popular, apolitical community has been targeted.
- mgraczyk 6y ago"adult sexual exploitation" usually refers to revenge porn, but it can also refer to threats of rape. Here's my guess as to what happened. Somebody posted a joke that was, taken literally, a threat or incitement of rape. "I hope you get fucked and don't enjoy it". An admin of the group "liked" or commented on the post. Later, a human labeler determined that the post was "adult sexual exploitation". It was removed. Because the admin had "liked" or commented on it, the group was automatically banned. That's FB's public policy on "adult sexual exploitation". Just a guess, but that is the most likely explanation to me.
- AntiImperialist 6y agoNo! It's a mob of agent provocateurs who are hired to specifically join these groups, post these content, like them and bring it to the top to get it banned.
- barnaclejive 6y agowtf FB, let this one fire burn itself out.
- windex 6y agoTime to look at decentralizing everything. The nodes have too much power.
- im3w1l 6y ago> Facebook suspended his group on Jan. 7 So much for "amid".
- Thorrez 6y agoThis article is so confusing. Facebook suspended the group on Jan 7 and already reinstated it. Why are we hearing about it now? The article says Facebook did several things, including banning the group, giving a notification "that the group violated policies on 'adult sexual exploitation'", reinstating the group, saying the ban has nothing to do with the "ongoing stock frenzy", and calling the group a "dangerous organization". When did each of these things happen and in what order? The way it mentions the Discord group is also confusing.
- InternetCTO 6y agoLOL! This is great. I hope people will finally start using decentralized solutions to this problem that have been around for years like memo.cash!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sto_hristo 6y agoSocial platform X is good when it bans the group i'm against. It's power and influence of free speech is in check. Social platform X is bad when it bans the group i support. It's power and influence of free speech is not in check.
- ElectricMind 6y agoGood. Beginning of end for FB. I see real opportunity for big platform here who doesn't do such PC kind of thing. I hope someone build truly neutral platform that supports both right wing and left wing politics , retail traders and wallstreet big players ... plus and minus.
- baobabKoodaa 6y agoI have a question to all the HN commenters who were celebrating openly when Twitter et al. banned Trump: are you happy now? Is this really who you want in charge of what speech is allowed on public forums? It only took 2 weeks and now Facebook has extended their censorship to stock trading groups. Who's next?
- holstvoogd 6y agoPlanning an attack on the capitol for months? Protect free speech! Taking it to the wallstreet chads? CENSOR THE FUCK OUT OF IT! Fuck facebook. End it.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoFirst Google with reviews, now Facebook. Why on Earth are they mixing themselves up in this? Both companies already gave people enough reasons to be angry at them earlier this month. A little more of this and I'll start believing that they want to get the wide public against them, for some reason.
- newbie578 6y agoI love how the masks are finally falling in 2021... My boy Mark is just begging to get himself regulated, along with the rest of FAANG. It will be a glorious day when the EU decides to intervene and make them play by the rules. No corporation should hold more sway than the government!
- zelphirkalt 6y agoRelying on FB for your communications? I guess that's what you risk happening every day. You are at the mercy of FB. They can eradicate your communication channel at a whim. Let this be a lesson and do not organize any community you value via FB.
- throw14082020 6y agoFacebook has done it. Reddit is probably very close. In the future, we might rely on other channels of communication. At which point if a situation like this happens again, the ISPs will intervene instead. Disgusting on so many levels (Robinhood, Platforms (Facebook, Google, Discord)).
- anticensor 6y ago(Akamai, Google, Google) if you consider in terms of CDN providers of those platforms.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hydroii 6y agoCensorship is incoming
- alexbiet 6y agoFacebook went from "Move fast and break things" to "Move fast and censor things". Time for Web 3 to shine.
- grumple 6y agoTook them 4 years to take down pages destroying our democracy. 1 week to take down a page destroying billionaires. There's a reason Trump's populism gained so much momentum. The economic system in which we operate is broken. It needs to change.
- kodah 6y agoHaving been on the internet a long time I can confidently say that WSB's "culture" is just old internet culture based on the descriptions in these threads. Metahumor and offensive words are nothing new. This confusing humor is alongside others like 4chan. When normal people see that kind of humor and culture they are immediately offended because it doesn't really match anything in reality. Normal people don't go around using those words that way unless they're 13. While it's possible an influx of new users drives up the number of people joining, thus creating a squeeze on the number of people learning to adapt to that culture and thusly carrying that humor too far, this is nothing out of the ordinary in the world other than that Facebook now deems those words hate speech (assuming what people are commenting on is what they got banned for.) There are likely people on this forum who would reject that culture because of their ideals. Those words fit right into a category called "ableism" whether you use them for humor or not. You're not fighting some hedge companies paid troll machines or whatever else you can dream up. What's happening to WSBs is more tantamount to what happened to the internet and many small forums back in the late 2000s when Facebook and Twitter signed on millions of people who had never used the internet before. What you're fighting is people who want the internet to reflect reality.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoI never though id say this, but quality of discussion on HN was disssapointing and lower than on reddit lately. Here the comments seem full of old chestnuts like 'it's a private company, they do what they want' and 'WSB is manupulating the market' The reddit is actually discussing the core of the matter and their next steps.
- ctrlp 6y agoFrankly, this is a good thing. Maybe when those who were so sanguine about the recent censoring by Big Tech see it without the blinders of their political bias on, and also witness to the coordinates attacks by the media to justify it, the other Big Lie will be obvious to more people.
- dandare 6y agoAre you referring to the recent censoring of platforms that refused to moderate the inciting of violence? I believe there is a huge difference. You can not have a society that is tolerant to intolerance, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ctrlp 6y agoIf you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Iirc, there were a few major platforms that are well known to harbor and promote incitements of violence when it aligns with the political and cultural hegemon. You actually can and must have a society that is tolerant of intolerance. The alternative is totalitarianism. Hence the paradox.
- thisisrealn 6y agoCan’t wait to see how the HN censorship circle jerkers are going to justify this one. How does it work when you can’t call the otherwise nazis?
- Mc_Big_G 6y agoYou can always count on Facebook to do the wrong thing.