Ironically it probably brought a lot more attention to Discord than they would've had otherwise. I didn't see a single news article mention the Discord group until it was banned. Why would they? It was just a minor subset of the main group. Although... maybe that was the play here? Plenty of fresh eyes checking out and learning about Discord now.
Risk of SEC involvement. This admin is probably nowhere near as lenient on this kind of stuff as the last was, and the recent nonsense with GameStop is probably bad enough to attract negative regulatory attention.
That’s the joke. The SEC pursues the mostly harmless while letting the sharks go free. Did they do anything about naked short selling of Overstock stock? Nope, and now that it’s happened again and retail took advantage of a bad trade, the rules suddenly change “to protect the little guy.”
It’s disingenuous at a minimum, and crony capitalism when taken to the maximum.
Are they doing anything about Nancy Pelosi (her husband Paul to be specific) buying Tesla calls before bills were brought forth with generous EV charging network subsidies? “Nothing to see here.” (Nothing against Pelosi and not intended as whataboutism, picked because it was top of mind from some research today and the disparity of enforcement)
Edit: Pump and dump schemes absolutely should not be supported. Piling into a short squeeze is not a pump and dump scheme.
Nothing against Pelosi? If that's as it appears to me (trading on insider information, by a person in a position of public trust no less) she needs to be heavily fined, in prison, or both.
What makes me ill is that the insider trading rule makes sense. It protects congress from lawsuits when their mutual fund or ETF owns Tesla and they benefit by enacting laws that benefit their constituents, but that have downsides for others.
The rule however assumes that congress conducts themselves ethically, and evidently that is clearly not the case.
My spouse was an elected official in California, and we had to fill out Form 700; diversified mutual funds didn't need to be disclosed as long as they met the definitions (at least 100 investors, at least 15 issuers, not a sector fund). Of course, Form 700 doesn't apply to federal officials elected to represent California; but a similar disclosure requirement / duty to avoid apparent conflict of interest would be nice at the federal level.
It should be pretty simple for most elected officials to dump their publicly traded stock and get into a diversified mutual fund before they start campaigning and while they hold office. For those who have concentrated holdings that are hard to dump, they could put it into a blind trust or whatever. Office holders really shouldn't be making a lot of trades; equity based compensation aside (either of their spouse or if they're a part time officer where those still exist, and have a part time job with equity based compensation)
There are ways to deal with that. For example, I’m not allowed to buy or sell my own company’s shares outside of specific trading windows, but index funds are fine as long as the company represents less than 10% of the fund.
There's a WORLD of a difference between a mutual fund or ETF that owns Tesla, and buying call options on the stock, that make money only if the stock moves in a definite time-frame. We have other examples too, for example Kelly Loeffler, whose husband is head honcho of the NYSE, sold a lot of stocks just before the Feb/March crash in 2020, based on insider information that she got from attending the Congress briefings that showed it was not just a flu.
Common misconception, as most didn't hear much about it beyond its initial signing. Congress still has that exemption. I believe you're referring to the STOCK Act, of 2012, which cramped their style for a little over a year.
In 2013, Senator Harry Reid introduced S.716, which after 14 seconds of discussion was passed by unanimous consent. Its net effect was to make the rest of STOCKS untrackable, and therefore unreportable and unenforceable.
> EDIT: LOL, the WSB sort are here downvoting everything that doesn't parrot their embarrassing [expletive]. YEAH, TAKE DOWN THE BIG WIGS!
Chillax, you’re breaking at least one of the site guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments. Edit: specifically “Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put *asterisks* around it and it will get italicized.” Would appreciate if I could get similar clarification on exactly why my comment has lost karma.
There’s already ways to give negative feedback on a comment. You can downvote or flag, or even just collapse a comment so it doesn’t bother you. It comes off as presumptuous when people point at rules, thereby pulling the thread into a tangential meta conversation.
Then all you get is people asking why they were downvoted. IMO downvoting should include a comment if one doesn't already exist sufficiently explaining your reason for downvoting.
That doesn't mean it needs to turn into a discussion if they defend themselves, but I think some indication of why is almost always warranted.
Congress is famous for being extremely lucky in their trades. Somehow their timing is way better than for common plebes, there's much research around about it. But of course laws are for the little people, including insider trading laws, so...
I bought TSLA around about the same time she must have, with no insider knowledge.
Honestly I think we need some new rules about securities and elected officials, but the obvious ones would not cover a sitting president patronizing his own failing businesses in order to increase revenues using taxpayer money.
We want rules against people buying stock or taking bribes from oil companies, but nothing about using your own company to 'provide services' to federal officials. But even if you transfer control of your holdings to a third party, you still know what was in there when you started. And if 'what was in there' was your nephew's business...
Disgusting but not surprising take from the Nasdaq CEO. A few managers with access to billions are able to coordinate their funds because they own them all, but a diverse mob of retail investors couldn't do this up until now because they're all subject to game-theoretic prisoner's dilemma forces.
It's only because so many people are rallying around the ideological worth of the stock that keeps the price from crashing. As the fad dissipates naturally over time, its ideological worth will decline and bring the price down with it. Time is on the side of the hedge funds.
I'm not sure the decline will be gradual. Also, prices unsupported by the actual company's fundamentals will now absolutely bring in more shorts, perhaps even the same people that got squeezed on the way up, recouping their losses and maybe profiting at the expense of retailers that wait too long.
The point is that the SEC’s measures are half hearted at best.
The purpose of the system is what it does, and the capital market operators, institutional participants, and regulators prioritize their interests. This exercise is simply exposing those efforts to daylight for all to see.
Dr Byrne from Overstock puts it better then I can (from your citation): “The SEC once again opts for nerf penalties for financial rapists.”
If one thinks WSB or retail in this are the problem, you haven’t been paying attention.
It's crony capitalism at minimum, and absolutely disgustingly oppressive at the maximum. These people seemingly are physically unable to let "the little guy" have even a whiff of financial independence.
"Pump and dump schemes absolutely should not be supported. Piling into a short squeeze is not a pump and dump scheme."
LOL. Give me a break.
This is ___100%___ a P&D scam. They can squeeze shorts because they target trash stocks of failing businesses (you know -- the stocks that get shorted), then create a positively ridiculous story about a value proposition. A bunch of moron retail investors on Reddit aren't going to do shit to squeeze shorts, but they're the front for a couple of very well financed players.
But...something something Nancy Pelosi. Christ. Yeah, she's really scamming the system playing a stock at all time highs. Real elite moves.
Yes, GME's current price does not reflect the value of the company. That being said, anybody that feels that staying involved in a short play involving a profitable retailer with significant activist investor interest when short interest is exceeding 100% is a good idea shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a risk management office. If someone's definition of pump and dump scheme includes investors making awful decisions and contractually obligating themselves to handing their money over to other people at insane losses, then this is one. For the rest of the world that is willing to call a bad trade what it is (even when the winners have quite the potty mouth), it doesn't even come close.
Lie of omission, transcription of the relevant part of the video for anyone who doesn't click, Jen Psaki said: "I'm also happy to repeat that we have the first female treasury secretary and a team that's surrounding her, and often questions about market we'll send to them, but our team is of course - our economic team including Secretary Yellen and others - are monitoring uh the situation. It's a good reminder though that the stock market isn't the only measure of the health of our economy" [etc].
The response should have been "What situation? And why you expect the government to handle it - can't you wipe your own bottom without the government help?" But of course these times have passed - now the federal government should be everybody's nanny and hall monitor.
I thought occupy wall street was backed more by those who identify as democrats or at least leaning that way. And I see this short squeeze just as a more concrete way to f*ck with the big money. Granted, big money rules them all.
If you think the Occupy Wall Street crowd is the one currently in control of democratic politics, then you have not been paying attention to democratic politics.
> "We're suffering from success and our Discord was the first casualty. You know as well as I do that if you gather 250k people in one spot someone is going to say something that makes you look bad. That room was golden and the people that run it are awesome. We blocked all bad words with a bot, which should be enough, but apparently if someone can say a bad word with weird unicode icelandic characters and someone can screenshot it you don't get to hang out with your friends anymore. Discord did us dirty and I am not impressed with them destroying our community"
I will admit that racist clubs aren’t for me. However since they are against me, my race, and the continued breathing of my family... I reserve the right to report them.
Racist groups start with talk, then inevitably end with burning crosses and dangling nooses.
I'm black, I didn't like seeing a guy say ni*er hundreds of times in charge of the place where WSB users end up, I reported it :)
(and don't give me some dumb bullshit about "wElL yOu GuYS sAy Ni*a" it's not the same no matter how upset that makes you)
Took a while but I'm glad it's gone :)
-
I spent a lot of time on the main Discord that existed before this one (which most people had abandoned at the time since it was devoid of intelligent speech even by WSB)
WSB by it's nature has some rough edges, it's not the most politically correct place.
But a mod, a real mod with admin, not the joke WSB mod stuff... saying that stuff so much? Nah I'm going to report it.
WSB is on the edge of satire and outright toxicity but it toes the line fairly well.
That server was the opposite, mostly toxic (and not even in a humorous or satirical way) with very occasional coherency.
Did you read his post? He was active in the community. Was active in the one Discord server. Wanted to continue being active in the other, and saw all this racist crap.
... what? I did have an intention, the mod killed that intention.
I had enjoyed the other WSB discord very much, and was looking forward to a new server I'd enjoy and because of a jackass mod who say nig*er a lot I couldn't enjoy that.
So a very proportional response is to report the server they moderate!
I didn't lie, I didn't misconstrue anything, I said "this server has a moderator that spams nig*er very casually"
Are you defending that? Or blaming me for their behavior? Or faulting me for not liking that? Which is it?
-
Because make no mistake, if this wasn't an admin level mod saying this I wouldn't report them. I even get the WSB "everyone is a mod" meme. And I get moderation is tough, things slip, that's life.
But when your admin says nig*er hundreds of times for fun... you're crossing a line.
Here's a thought experiment. In a few hours of coding, Google, Discord, Twitter, Facebook, etc. could all spin up map/reduce searches across all their channels, groups, links, results... for any wordlist you'd care to provide.
If a flagged word is used past a certain frequency, the channel can be closed, the page can be delisted, the accounts can be banned, or the site can be terminated. So clean, simple, and really quite easy.
They can even just start with the really really awful words if you like.
But they don't do this. Generally speaking they (at least historically) tend to support the ability of people to say Bad Things on the internet! You can even enter these Bad Words right into the front page of the world's biggest search engine and get hundreds of millions of hits in 0.33 seconds.
Yet somehow a channel of particular notoriety which is causing serious financial damage to some very Important People can disappear in an instant, maybe even right on the day of its peak exposure, and those trivially, easily, obviously detectable Bad Words can be blamed.
And no one even has to think too hard about if that was really what just happened here. Because who would ever step up, particularly in our current political environment, to say that anyone or any channel used to espouse such Bad Words (or Wrong Think) should be tolerated?
You know you can be against arbitrary and unfair enforcement and think it's good to act against bigoted speech, right?
The way you're talking about "Bad Words" sounds like you think discord should ignore these problems entirely. It solves the biased enforcement problem but it's a pretty awful way to do it.
> Generally speaking they (at least historically) tend to support the ability of people to say Bad Things on the internet!
Who is they? Discord has not been supportive of the ability to say arbitrary bad things on their hosting.
We are experiencing technical difficulties based on unprecedented scale as a result of the newfound interest in WSB. 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.
This seems like a DDOS attack on r/wsb well knowing that the moderators cannot keep up with moderation?
Or is this simply a case of getting too popular for Reddit? The fact that discord was banned around the same time as r/wsb going private is suspect.
edit: After hours market shows GME is has TANKED!!!! Closed at 345 and dipped to 248. Holy, there will be class action lawsuits for sure now.
edit: I've been on the phone for 2 hours waiting for my broker to answer. All of this seems weird. They SUDDENLY have volatility and decide today is the day to stop answering my calls???
edit: /u/DeepFuckingValue's posts have all been wiped!!!!! WTF!
Denying communication completely could be a disaster in this case. In the absence of their precious DD, what number do you think the WSB'rs are going to choose to set their limits at? 420.69 seems a little too low right now. My bet would be 42,069 at least.
Reddit servers were really unstable for a bit, I've noticed user pages don't load when that happens. Seems a lot of people see conspiracies in caching issues.
It's because there was too much noise. Spam, new 0 karma accounts creating threads and posting the wrong kind of shitposts, etc. It was virtually inevitable.
I tried to comment there with a 14+ day old throwaway account 4 hours ago and was met with a bot deleting the comment.
"It looks like your account is too new to use /r/wallstreetbets. Sorry about that, but people use new accounts to spam us all the time. Please don't ask when you can be approved because we're going to say no and then laugh at you. Your account must be one month old at least."
I think the SEC thread created this morning had something to do with going private.
It isn't the first time they've gone private but this time with the discord being banned and all, im getting ban vibes.
Look if Discord can ban WSB over some cuss words, imagine what Reddit can do.
I'm on the phone with my broker as we speak and now I fear that this is a coordinated attack.
edit: so after I made that comment about github's half assed apology towards the guy that they terminated for saying "watch out for nazis", those same group of people are downvoting and flagging every single one of my comments. AGAIN. You didn't care when people were bringing attention to the anti-semitic memes being posted on Github 4 years ago, now you want to bury every fucking comment, just like the angry hedge fund managers getting their revenge on serfs making a little money.
It's private because the mods and the community cannot handle the sudden interest. (A subreddit squeeze!)
They even say this on the placeholder page.
A few hours ago zjz (a mod) posted about trying to get an unlimited API endpoint for Reddit from the admins so the mod bots can cope with the load.
"We are experiencing technical difficulties based on unprecedented scale as a result of the newfound interest in WSB. 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."
Why do they mention ensuring reddit's content policy? That's a hammer admins bring out when they want to ban a subreddit. Did admins lean on the mods?
It's been bringing bad press on Reddit and that's usually the trigger for the admins to enforce their content policy.
(see the Donald, racist subs, fat people hate, violentacrez, jailbait - while these clearly did violate their policies, it took bad PR for enforcement to happen)
My guess is this means the mods will probably create a minimum Reddit karma amount required to post and/or comment. The goal to cut down on spam and bots.
So, new people can’t join in and immediately start trying to pump up random stocks.
WSB is getting flooded right now, so the mods are building in some auto-moderator things to get a handle on the subreddit.
Probably additional cover so that people reporting on this issue remember that there exists a reddit wide content policy that all subreddits have to enforce - so if there is any issue, reddit is also in the picture.
Why does everybody assume there is not some hedge fund behind this short squeeze?
Do hedge funds not know how to do social media marketing?
Why go on CNBC to announce your position when you can pay some kids and influencers to shitpost on wsb to rile up an online mob and leave no fingerprints?
It is crazy to me how ppl continually fall for this stuff? How does any mass online movement not trigger skepticism? I mean look at the history of this stuff from Kony 2012 to the Arab spring to Russian troll farms.
I do however think that this is a significant new front in the battles between Wall Street behemoths. Market manipulation by stirring up online mobs of mooks. If this one is organic, the next won’t be.
Cant you easily tell where the invested money is coming from? if its coming from corporate accounts then it would obviously be another hedge fund but as far as I was aware these were lots of accounts from armchair investment platforms like robinhood etc
