Hacker News Reader

Comment by rasz | Hacker News Reader

>“hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings.”

banned for posting memes like https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/135439073542503628...

The r word isn’t nice. But that cannot be the reason to ban the server.

This sounds like an excuse. They mention fraud several times -but say it’s NOT because of fraud— but I almost perceive a wink when they mention it like that.

You’d be surprised what kind of asinine bullshit they will ban a server over. Feels like everywhere you go these days some real or virtual administrator is pre-determining how much risk you’re allowed to put yourself in.

I joined the server and the first thing I saw was a mod saying the N word with hard R. Check their history and there's literally pages of it.

I didn't appreciate that so I reported it and left.

Lots of people confusing this with not liking WSB.

The other WSB discord which was linked to the subreddit was fine even though it was barely moderated. Rough around the edges like WSB tends to be... but fine as a place to hang out and see funny things.

This second server was extreme even by WSB standards.

The joke is "4chan found a bloomberg terminal" but really it's like Reddit found one... no one is as down right randomly gross or racist as people are on deep end 4chan or Reddit would have banned it a long time.

This server was really like if the worst part of 4chan pretended to know what a stock is. It wasn't even coherent by WSB standards, and the signal to noise made WSB proper look like an actual Bloomberg Terminal

Well, it is "Like 4chan found a Bloomberg terminal".

Different platforms have different baseline moderation policies, and in some cases that remains the differentiator in the platform itself (e.g. Parler). I dont think acting within the values of another site is a good excuse to not get banned by the one a community currently occupies

Discord is absolutely in their right to do as it may please with the platform. My point is more to the effect of the ethos of WSB is not a place for civil discourse and expecting otherwise is foolish. The only reason it exists on reddit is heavy moderation, and that's/was going to be impossible on Discord.

Hmm, Al Gore must be smiling. It’s 40 years late, but his dream is almost come true.

Not exactly sure what you're getting at.

Here is my position, as this seems to be increasingly foreign for many people I talk with. A private entity (person or enterprise) should be able to manage their servers without outside interference. If I open up a server privately, I should have the right to moderate it, or not, however I see fit. 4chan still exists (as of now), and IMO, should not be interfered with. If somebody wants to create an LDS chatroom where swearing and drinking coffee lands you a ban, more power to you. We should be allowed to freely associate as we see fit, and those who own the space can decide the rules for discourse.

Now, am I saying corporate interests would never actively coordinate with government or other powerful interests to maintain a certain narrative or obtain power, absolutely not. That is a totally different discussion, and probably relies on a bottom up approach. The plebs aren't going to change Twitter's TOS or the programming on FOX, and we shouldn't expect to either. The corporate media sphere is carefully curated for whatever drives their interests. That maybe engagement, supporting commercial or policy positions beneficial to immediate or patron interests, or just old fashioned Operation Mockingbird interference. It's best if we ditch it altogether.

So you joined a server and went crying to teacher since you saw a bad word you didn't like instead of just leaving the server and letting it be. It is people like you who are the problem. Banning benign communities for using bad words is what drives people into fringes and into the arms of actual bad actors.

> The mention fraud several times -but say it’s NOT because of fraud— but I almost receive a wink when they mention it like that.

Their full statement as quoted in the linked article denies that the ban is for "financial fraud" but includes "spreading misinformation" as one of the reasons for the ban. I don't see any contradiction or winking involved. People who repeatedly spread hate speech and discriminatory content and glorify violence after repeated warnings not to do so are pretty likely to be spreading a wide variety of misinformation other than financial fraud.

As for whether such things can be the reason to ban the server, I'm sure Discord's terms of service allow them to ban for this reason. Historically a lot of tech companies were hands-off in practice, but ever since the January 6 violence in the US and the related online activities, many of these companies would right now prefer to err in the opposite direction.

> People who repeatedly spread "hate speech" and "discriminatory content" and "glorify violence" after repeated warnings not to do so are pretty likely to be spreading a wide variety of "misinformation" other than financial fraud.

None of these things (in quotes) can even be defined, and anyone who believes that the government or some tech oligarch is going to be a fair judge must have been born yesterday. It's ridiculous how we can both simultaneously criticize countries like China, but at the same time encourage the exact same types of suppression in our own Westernized way.

There has never been either a legal or moral right in any tradition of freedom of speech throughout history, including the US tradition, to insist that other private parties who disagree with your speech continue to do business with you. The strong US freedom of speech protections are about government action only, and even those have exceptions. Every judgment of this sort has some subjectivity, and that's fine.

If someone dislikes Discord's judgment on that matter, they can switch providers or run their own service. If every viable provider stops dealing with them, that kind of implicit collective judgment and its consequences have always been part of humanity.

Also, most Western countries other than the US do have laws or judicial precedents which define terms like hate speech and provide penalties for engaging in it that are routinely adjudicated and enforced by courts. Even US judges consider hate speech as evidence an aggravating factor in how they handle crimes with hate as a motivation, accept the illegality of incitement to imminent violence, etc.

> There has never been either a legal or moral right in any tradition of freedom of speech throughout history, including the US tradition, to insist that other private parties who disagree with your speech continue to do business with you.

I don't care - there bloody well should be.

How would that work, practically? Let's say I prefer to get my hair cut by a barber that makes public statements in favor of gender equality instead of patronizing one that publicly advocates for the dynamics of Western society's traditional gender roles. For the sake of this scenario, let's say there's no other relevant difference between the two barbers, except where noted. Should my disfavored barber be able to insist that I shift some or all of my hair care business to them since the reason I'm not using them is their speech? How much of my business should they be able to force?

Would it be any different if I preferred the traditionalist and the one who wanted to force my business were the equality advocate? What if my preferred barber just stayed quiet and it were the one who vocally advocated either view who insisted on my business? What if the business terms of the barber with distasteful speech were worse, and how much worse would they need to be for that difference to outweigh their free speech rights?

None of this seems very plausible to enforce well.

More importantly, who would decide among all these possibilities? That's quite the power of imposing one's views (and financial policies) on others. I'm not sure I trust any government or private regulatory authority with that much control over private lives and livelihoods.

A "moral right" would be easy to enforce. Everyone just thinks less of people who mix politics and business.

But that's the thing - not everyone does think less of such people, under the view that only people with privilege can even have the luxury of tuning out the impact of politics on their lives at work, since marginalized colleagues still suffer the impacts of politics daily at the office (or indirectly elsewhere in ways attributable to the actions and inactions of their employer) and they shouldn't be blamed for mixing politics and business when they speak up about it. I realize that's not your view, but it's a plenty common view.

Further, not everyone who wants to keep politics and business separate even agrees on what mixing politics and business means.

Is it politics for a company to go out of its way to make bathrooms explicitly gender-neutral, put pronouns in staff directories, encourage even people who are not trans to indicate their pronouns so that trans people don't feel singled out by doing so, discipline people for persistent or intentional use of the wrong pronouns in the workplace, and cover common trans needs like hormone replacement therapy in the company health insurance plan?

Many people on the right of the US political spectrum would call that politics. Many other people conclude that some good workers happen to be trans and would feel more comfortable working at such employers than at ones with traditional attitudes toward them, meaning that these changes have the apolitical good business consequence of maximizing the ability of the company to attract and retain workers.

Does one have to inquire into the motivation of the employer for adopting these policies to decide if they're mixing politics or business, or just engaging in business?

Lots of subjectivity even on moral rights questions like this.

Though, I will say that my use of the word "enforce" is really only applicable to legal rights, not moral rights, outside of some kind of dystopian enforcement of what people are allowed to think.

So this is fine, but gay wedding cakes aren't?

The problem with modern leftism is consistency in beliefs. It's why I had to just walk away despite still agreeing with most leftist policy ideas.

If you're referring to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, it wasn't about free speech rights at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo...

Both sides of that case agreed that the company was choosing to deny its custom wedding cake services to a gay wedding because of the owner's religious beliefs against gay weddings, not because of anyone's speech. In other words, they objected to making a wedding cake because of attributes inherent to who the engaged couple were, not anything that was being said or expressed.

I view it as plenty consistent to forbid businesses which serve the public from choosing not to serve customers based on innate aspects of who they are, like being the same sex or gender as each other, while still allowing them to make such choices in reaction to the customer's speech. Sometimes the line is clear (no speech was at issue in this case), and sometimes it's blurry, but that's absolutely a consistent rule whether or not it's the one you support.

The reason the Supreme Court ruled for the bakeshop was very narrow. The ruling acknowledged that states can constitutionally have non-discrimination laws that apply neutrally to businesses without making available exemptions due to religious beliefs. The ruling was just about the behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in applying their state law to this case, which the Supreme Court majority viewers as hostile to the owner's religious beliefs and not religiously neutral as the government must be. So it was about religious bias in the government action, only. One member of the 5-4 majority wrote that he might well have ruled the other way had the commission acted neutrally.

It's still a free speech issue when the cakeshop did not want to write the message the customer asked for.

FWIW I also disagree with the ruling, for the same reasons I oppose online censorship by private companies.

The concern expressed by the cakeshop was primarily about making a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, not the message. Put differently, they wouldn't have made a custom cake for this particular wedding, knowing it was a gay wedding, even if there were no message requested. The ruling was not on free speech grounds.

Anyway, the cakeshop scenario is a bit different in another way: it can be argued to involve expressive activity on the part of the employees who create the custom cake, since it's far more artistic than mechanical, and since they do literally write any requested message with decoration. By contrast, Discord's actions against the customer are simply a choice of which speech by others they choose to allow to flow through the platform they control, plus a statement of their own speech which they choose to put out about their action.

(For what it's worth, they've chosen to partially reverse their ban since we started out discussion, if I understand right.)

If you want to ensure there is a content neutral platform, maybe the best way (at least under US free speech concepts) is to advocate for a government-owned/run Internet group communication platform, just like we have in offline life when you go to the nearby park or plaza to protest, or when you send mail to everyone in your local community through USPS.

Everyone agrees that, in the US, the government can't constitutionally censor that on the basis of content or viewpoint, with a few exceptions such as forbidding child pornography. I'm guessing that platform wouldn't keep getting funding from the politicians if it got too much offensive content, but if it wasn't shut down entirely, they couldn't be selective about which speech to permit.

Suggesting and weighing/voting on investment strategies in the open seems like the opposite of fraud.

There is nothing wrong with the word retard. It’s a legitimate dictionary word. Every few years the PC police has to arbitrarily decide that something is morally unfashionable and then they convince everyone that if they don’t replace it with an equivalent string, they’re somehow bad people. It makes no sense and everyone goes along with it. Whatever the current replacement is, that will probably be disallowed in a few years too. There’s nothing “not nice” about directing it toward one’s self as a joke. It’s not like they’re using it to bully a disabled person. People who can even afford the bandwidth to complain and choose that hill to die on have far too few problems in their life.

> There is nothing wrong with the word retard.

Well, sure, in that it's a word with lots of nonproblematic uses.

> It’s a legitimate dictionary word.

This implies probably a more normative role for dictionaries than is appropriate, but, sure, it is. However, as a noun applied to people (as distinct from the verb meaning “to slow down” or the noun meaning “a slowing down”) it’s one which every dictionary I can find flags explicitly as “offensive”, so insofar as one uses dictionaries as arbiters of usage, I think there clearly is a problem with the use of “retards” in question.

Maybe I’m a bad person, but this is my take. If someone uses the r word once in a while. Like it slips out when High school slang mode kicks in, I’m Okay. If it’s someone’s go to word, I feel that person is on the uncouth side of things. I’m not going to report someone to HR over it, or terminate a friendship, but I may minimize interaction with them.

But that goes for all excess vulgarity not just the r word. It’s not that I’m offended, but it’s a personal taste for less crassness.

Can you see how rtard is perhaps similar to the homophobic f-slur? The word is used as a pejorative with the implication that the group it is most commonly used towards (disabled, gay) is being used as a point of negative comparison. While I think we should be aware that the use of language is incredibly context-rich, we also need to recognise that the words we use have side-effects. Would you feel comfortable if a friend of yours dropped something and said "oh damn, I'm such a <n-word>"?

Speaking of the f-word, I’ve seen it used non pejoratively at the embarcadero farmers’s market. One of the vendors sells them for home decorative purposes along with cattails, lavender, etc.

Being from the UK, I hear it all the time to refer to cigarettes. When I worked in a shop, my colleagues would just walk through the shop and say "just taking a f* break". While it was totally inoffensive, it did make me a bit uncomfortable. Piquing my sjw sensitivities, I guess

Just to clarify for people outside the UK, this refers to the three-letter variation.

Yes but that's nothing to do with homosexuals? Why is there any relation.

There isn't any relation other than the word being used. It's not something I ever complained about because I understood that it wasn't offensive in any way and is, like I said, just the response I have to hearing that word.

Personally I find it disturbing that adults discussing the word feel the need to type things like “f-word” instead of just typing the word fag. You’re talking about a cigarette. It’s a configuration of 3 particular letters. There’s no reason to react to them in that context.

I will speak how I wish to my friends; nobody will ever dictate otherwise.

> nobody will ever dictate otherwise.

I wouldn’t be so sure.

I think there's a public/private divide here. You can use whatever language you want with people you know, because you know how they'll react and that it genuinely won't cause offence. In a public space though, I'd be wary. A black person walking past a group of white kids making racist jokes and using racial slurs is only going to make them feel less comfortable, even if the white kids genuinely mean no harm.

I think even if words like that aren't used to intentionally bully or harm someone, it certainly sets the tone of an environment. We all have to make the choice as individuals about what tone we want our words and actions to bring to the world around us.

Right, but that's the in-joke. People refer to themselves as mentally disabled. It does set the tone - namely, of leaving your ego at the door. I fail to see how this is a negative.

I mean, in a locker-room context, yeah, for sure, the externalities might be limited. At the same time, the comparison made there strikes as one oozing with value judgements. To be frank, I feel like the sentiments behind said value judgements would make the world a worse-off place.

I wouldn't want to contribute to a world where someone with mental disabilities feels like they're the indirect butt of someone else's joke. I feel like there's a way to be humble (and witty, likely!) without having to punch sideways.

“retard” is the most ironic example of the ineffectiveness of the euphemism treadmill.

And now, on GameFAQs, I could not include the term “tardive dyskinesia” in a post. It was refused because apparently the four character sequence “tard” cannot occur in any word.

They could, at the very least, simply implement a system that a human moderator receives an immediate notification when a any of their banned words is used, who will then use good human judgement, rather than such wide blanket bans of four character strings.

That ridiculous. There have been a few references to the Scunthorpe problem lately, so I won’t repeat it.

Are kids going to be prohibited from saying “tardy” When they’re late?

I would assume one can't talk of one's tardiness on GameFAQs, yes.

I would also assume that in class, context would be more easy. Of course, some people were fired over the use of the word “niggard”, but it's a fairly obscure word, but I did once see it in an English translation of the Qurʾān.

An instructor or professor of linguistics almost got cancelled because he was using Chinese words as an example of the usefulness in speech of useless filler words. “That one” which if you want to or make yourself to, can be made to sound like a racial insult.

That’s to say it’s no surprise that ignorant people will take offense before they understand words that might be uncommon in their lexicon.

I looked up this story and of course it happened in the U.S.A.

Verily, what is with the U.S.A.-man's unparalleled ability to be offended by a word, or any word phonetically similar, regardless of the context? — I am really quite glad I do not live there. It seems stressful to be able to loose one's profession so quickly over it's infamous “cancel culture”.

I also heard about a problem with a chat platform that kicked german users for using the common word "weniger" ("less"/"fewer"). Meaning not only didn't it care about context, it even banned incorrect spelling of words, which in this example made it impossible to mention the Republic of the Niger.

On another one, someone with the name “Hui” couldn't even post anything, because apparently it's a romanization of a Russian profanity and they had applied a global filter which would surely leave out quite a bit.

Or the online palæontological conference where the word “bone” was filtered...

How can one ever think such blanket filters will not go awry.

Will they be able to talk about tardigrades during biology class?

The fact that you have to say "r-word" instead of "retarded" is embarrassing.

Are they not familiar with the euphemism treadmill?

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-th...

People saying "retard" isn't the real reason, they're just using it as an excuse. Powerful Wall Street types who gambled against them are losing money because of the hype train they've ignited and are crying to regulators. The discussion of coordination in the chat may be considered illegal and Discord doesn't want negative attention from regulators and the press.

Discord is gaming community chat room. They would have no users if they are banning for using the word "retard".

> gaming community chat room

A platform of gaming community chat rooms, actually.

WSB is notorious for also posting a lot of anti-LGBT slurs (for example, one of WSBs favorite insults is calling someone a "gay bear", or more commonly a rainbow emoji followed by a bear emoji, or even calling people f*gs).

Also worth noting that the Discord group is so much worse than WSB the subreddit. Sometimes on the Discord server there are just people spamming the N word for no reason.

And who exactly is hurt here?

I've never heard of this subreddit before, nor it's Discord Server, but I do know that one doesn't just stumble upon either on accident. The only people being hurt here are the ones that went looking to be hurt.

What we have here is a group of immature people, emboldened by internet anonymity, saying stupid things for the "lolz".

Does anyone think they'll be more mature because their server was banned? Of course not... they'll just make a new one, further emboldened by the obvious censorship. Let idiots be idiots, folks... we all know one when we see one.

Recall not too long ago the drama over github when one of the employers simply said to "watch out for nazis" during the DC Capitol incident.

We are at a point where certain languages are being banned and made illegal, you can't blame people for being worried that we are on the cusp of totalitarianism.

The banning of discord and r/wsb going private is quite scary, especially given the timing.

I guess hedge fund managers are just like mob bosses, they do not like being played.

edit: why is it that ANY mention of the github nazi incident gets INSTANTLY mass downvoted and flagged? Every single comment about this on HN gets censored.

I didn't follow the GH drama too closely, especially not on HN, but the "apology" seemed to be very thoughtful and almost exactly what you'd want a company to offer in response to the complaints being made against them. I think using it as an example of language being banned/made illegal is something a lot of people would disagree with, and thus the disagreement with your comment.

>WSB is notorious for also posting a lot of anti-LGBT slurs (for example, one of WSBs favorite insults is calling someone a "gay bear", or more commonly a rainbow emoji followed by a bear emoji, or even calling people f*gs).

For what is worth, they pretty much never use it actually insultingly, and do not seem to harbor any ill-will against LGBT people (and some of them are lgbt). They also mostly use those words to describe themselves, and do it more as a nod to boiler room talk/4chan.

>Sometimes on the Discord server there are just people spamming the N word for no reason.

As far as I know, a lot of that is done by bots, though possibly set by other users to prank the discord.

Agree. I'm fairly certain a lot of the posts are self-deprecating - eg. "my wife's boyfriend", "i'm a r**d", "someone smarter than me", "i'm a gay bear". My wife doesn't have a boyfriend (hopefully), but I'd say that in a post there.

This isn't necessarily inflammatory. It is - like it or not - WSB's culture. It is not meant to be taken literally.

It is a frothy place, full of herd mentality. That is part of the clique. Going against that does incur the same tone of language against you. But it's not for who you are personally. It's the same language they use to describe the "in group", but it _seems_ worse to the out group.

Is the intent to mock people? No. Does it mean anything negative? No, 99% of it is literally re. the financials. Are there bad people in every group? Yes.

That's like saying that southerners flying confederate flags is "just their culture, not meant to be taken literally". That dog don't hunt.

Same thing, intent matter.

Can you explain why someone being gay is deprecating?

It's not, and for the record I said "gay bear", not just "gay". For that matter, if pressed I would identify as pansexual. The intent is that it's not meant to be degrading.

Please don't go looking for people to be bad guys - maybe instead assume good intent. You don't have to nit everything people say to find something to prove them wrong. You didn't focus on anything I was communicating - you tried to pick an argument with the smallest aspect of the thread.

I’m not nitpicking anything. Your argument was that it’s all just a joke, that calling yourself gay was self-deprecating. “I’m gay, I’m a retard, laugh at me.”

And now you contradict yourself saying it’s not meant to be degrading because it’s all just a joke.

You’re proving the toxic culture that those kinds of communities ferment.

The 'insult' gay has nothing to do with homosexuality anymore, and I don't know any gay bears either. Realising that puts things in a different light.

"gay bears" is a play on words. Bear is a term in the gay community, just like bull is a term in the hotwife community (my wife's bf jokes apply here). Jokes happen both ways in WSB, straight or gay!

It's self deprecating to go against the market and be a bear in the biggest bull run of the decade. It's foolish to do so. I and many others being bearish have lost money. This is the entire point behind GME.

Like I said, it's all about the financials - not about you as a person.

It’s banter in the style of the barbershop scene from the 2008 film ‘Gran Torino’:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=74I7Nl1mKig

On 4chan, “-fag” is essentially a nominalizing suffix at this point that is semantically interchangeable with “-man”; it lacks any connotation of positivity or negativity.

Not only do I second this, I would like to expand on it. This has been usage for at least a decade. Are you a musician? You are a "musicfag." And it is to such extremes that heterosexuals are "straightfags" and homosexuals are "gayfags."

It is indeed this way on many parts of the internet, including many parts of Discord and I.R.C..

I can remember this usage on NewGrounds in the early 2000s already. — I feel it's kind of sad that it's a part of internet culture that is becoming more and more obscure as the internet is experiencing an endless november of “normalfags”.

So?

My prior for the majority of a reddit-based Discord server community being pro-LGBT is so astronomically low that the usage of that kind of language is unsettling to say the least. I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning people just participating in the banter and picking up the 4chan lexicon, but I'm also sure there are a lot of people that use these words with no irony or awareness. It's like being scared to make an ironic offensive joke with your family because you feel like your cousin might laugh just a little too much. I'd be very cautious about assuming lack of explicitly-lgbt sentiment is the same as pro-lgbt-sentiment, especially given the culture wsb has branched from.

Given that's the same culture obsessed with traps, it's pretty clear that it hates fags, not gays.

They're not 'pro-LGBT' because that language is stultified, boring, soul-rending mainstream corporate-speak. Speaking that way is beneath human dignity. "Are you pro-LGBT?" "Do I have a problem with gays, you mean?"

Better to be a human wallowing in the filth than a socially correct bugman standing clean, sterile, toothless to attention when the commisars come by.

There was a rather interesting discussion regarding something similar on 4chan not so long ago:

https://desuarchive.org/a/thread/213247621/#213261293

It seems to hate “gays”; what it doesn't hate is homoerotica. It seems to take it's cues more from the Græco-Roman or Japanese interpretations that reject “intransient sexual orientations” as a concept altogether.

They simply want to look at pretty males without being bothered by now having to define themselves with some label that behaves more like a tribe than it does a truly descriptive term.

Most of the Japanese fiction that deals with same-sex love isn't phrased in terms of “It's okay to be gay.” but rather “Love has nothing to do with gender.”.

'Pro-LGBT' wasn't meant as corporate-speak, I genuinely just meant it as indicating a positive or even neutral sentiment towards those under the LGBT umbrella. I do agree that "Are you pro-LGBT?" as a question is not useful, as it almost feels like "Please signal your political affiliation" at this point.

I will say that the obsession with traps does for some reason feel to me as unrelated to views on homosexuality, which is weird, and possibly a misunderstanding of mine.

I meant that thinking in terms of 'LGBT' being a distinct category in your conception of the world is a worldview foreign to a lot of *chan people.

They don't slice up the world the same way you do; whoever made up that word put gays, lesbians, and transsexuals together for political reasons, and left-wing political activists your median chan-users are not- why use the language of someone else, someone who despises you and wants to crush you?

From their point of view, the mental theatre that contains actors named 'LGBT' and 'Diversity, Inclusion and Equity' as front-and-centre characters is a cold, dead place-

whereas their native memescape, filled with Colourful Words, traps, arguments, the cacophany of 'hateful memes', is alive and vibrant by comparison, if tinged by a deep despair at the leaching of vitality from the world.

It's why the NPC meme caught on.

Traps are anime, and so are idealised abstractions as much as anime girls are. They're also tinged by imported japanese culture, I'd assume.

"Gay bear" is not an insult or pejorative. Most of wsb were "gay bears* in Feb - April.

"Gay bear" is almost exclusively used as an insult on the subreddit, and this week has been one of the primary insults used in reference to the short sellers (everyones #1 enemy on WSB right now). It would still be pejorative even if not used that way, but it's ridiculous to claim that it's not a pejorative when it is explicitly used as an insult.

I don't know what else to say except that you're wrong.

The only insults being hurled at anyone right now are to CNBC and to the hedge funds and their market maker buddies. Possibly the SEC for allowing brazen market manipulation on the part of the above.

And that, kids, is how I lost $100,000.

That's atrocious! How could anyone post something so mean on reddit group!

For large groups, Discord is generally more strict about community guidelines than Reddit.

For large public* groups. The large private groups are basically 1990s Yahoo! chat rooms, complete with racism, bullying, criminal activity and child grooming. They only get caught when they get infiltrated, or when members self-report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/discord-where-teens-rule-and-pa...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/01/29/disco...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com