What's even more concerning to me is that, to platforms looking for an excuse, your comment could be painted as trying to "incite" violence, and used as a justification to ban you.
Given the track record Reddit has of keeling over to public pressure, there is no way they are going to stand up to the SEC.
On one hand, the rise of meme stocks is shining light that one of the central conceits of capitalism is wrong (i.e. that the stock market isn't a good arbiter of the value of companies).
But as a member of the public, I'm concerned about what happens when the meme stocks come crashing back to earth. When that happens institutional investors will overreact, doom and gloom will reign, and CEOs of public companies will use that to lay off people and cut worker benefits.
The common person always loses when bubbles burst.
In a crazy way this is probably saving a lot more jobs than it's jeopardizing.
In this case, it's not really saving any jobs, since GameStop employees (excluding higher ranked employees) probably don't have any part of their compensation that's stock based.
Toys R Us was a leveraged buyout, which is definitely a much more ethically dubious strategy, and that can cause jobs to be lost. This won't cause any jobs at GameStop to be lost, although there probably will be some unhappy traders and people left holding bags of GameStop stock.
Out of curiosity, has that actually happened to a public stock? I'd assume the minority shareholders would have standing for a lawsuit if someone were to do a hostile takeover of a stock and liquidate the assets of the company.
That is a tautology, because you define the "common person" as the person who loses.
I'm sure there were people who made good money in the 2008 housing bubble. Didn't they all live like kings for a while, because they could borrow arbitrary sums against their houses?
Similarly, some people may make good money on that GameStop thing now.
The "common people" who didn't participate in this will probably never even notice. At most they'll notice that their favorite shopping mall is closing, but that is part of a larger trend. And they can now shop on Amazon instead, so their quality of life probably remains the same or gets improved.
The common person is the majority of Americans who live paycheck-to-paycheck and don't invest in the market.
Those who don't participate will be negatively impacted if this causes another recession, which is likely as investors get spooked by another bubble burst. Which means standard of living, job benefits, and salaries will continue to stagnate.
This also ignores the fact that we've moved from guaranteed pensions to 401ks, which are heavily dependent on hedge funds. If hedge funds lose their shirts, they'll get a bailout from the government because we didn't learn our lesson about too big to fail last time. Which will mean government austerity in other areas, typically starting in social welfare programs.
The "central conceit" is not that the market is a "good arbiter" of the value of a company. Just that it's the least bad one.
The central conceit of every alternative to capitalism is that there's such a thing as a singular, coherent definition of "the value of a company" and that it's consistently, accurately measurable by some central authority.
Jimmy Cramer pumping stocks every evening to his boomer audience which ultimately has some effects (not sure how much though) on stock prices seems fine but a group of people discussing stocks seems like a threat...
The question is, will the creators of these communities trust cloud providers where the platforms are hosted to not de-platform them, or will we end up with P2P, distributed networks instead?
I want an anti-authoritarian internet. The past year has been surreal.
And it will thrive and will be a better place to make more money that SV for 5-10 years, until it gets censored like any public space.
You will want a data mesh layer that multiple apps run on top of probably.
Network effects drive a lot of adoption of these things, which is a huge headwind against an "explosion" of them lasting that long.
Robinhood doesn't like us? We'll start out own.
Reddit doesn't like us? Let's just kickstart and crowd-source another.
This idea that the common man needs to be protected from himself is paternalistic and condescending. Private equity is the means of collective action and the rich people don't want us to organize without their blessings.
Not enough liquidity. WSB has very little to do with long term investing. It's just about using the stock market as a casino.
Technically the JOBS act is supposed to allow this (crowdfunding). May not be as easy as buying stock but at least it's legal now.
Interesting word choice. Conservative wording of "common man", but liberal wording of "paternalistic". I don't mind the former but I do wonder how a father would be more inclined to protect a child from itself than a mother; if anything, I would find maternalistic a more fitting descriptor.
There's Ruqqus which is already a working alternative to reddit. However, what I found going there is that there are a lot of anti-left memes being shared. Some amount of toxicity. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I wish the platform was a bit less political, a more neutral alternative to reddit... but hey, if enough people leave reddit, maybe it will become just that.
https://ruqqus.com/+Commentary/post/74iv/lol-you-thought-tha...
This is probably because reddit is quite clearly a left-leaning platform. Due to the lack of healthy balance, the refugees from reddit are mostly people who feel their views and voices are being silenced by aggressive moderation. In my opinion this state of affairs is only reddit's fault.
That’s a pretty long-term bet, though, and I don’t think WSB is usually into those.
Then payment processors ban you. Then you start your own visa. Let's start our own visa. Banks ban you. Let's start our own bank. Your hosting service bans you. Host your own. Your ISP bans you. Start your own ISP. Other ISPs don't peer with you. Start your own internet. Then the feds shut down your bank.
The answer to censorship is not "start your own".
By the way, the Reddit WSB "shutdown" was done by mod admins to clean up the page a bit. It was private for an hour or two and back up.
Now I doubt Reddit has huge contracts with the government, but I’m sure the government could find something to harass them with if it wanted to. Drive long enough and a cop will eventually find a reason to pull you over.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-webs...
http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/28/usGovtABigUserOfAmaz...
This chapter in WSB has brought forth substantially better communication with the admins than we'd ever had in the past, including a direct line to Alexis.
Edit:
Thank you all for the outpour of support!
Our main challenges thus far have been technical (hitting API limits, automoderator backlog, etc.) however, those issues have now been resolved and our bots are running better than ever before.
We largely owe our success in handling this to the Reddit engineering team who has routinely stepped up and fixed things. As chaotic as the scene has been for us moderators, I'm sure they have been under much more pressure. If you know a reddit engineer, please give them your thanks as they have done a phenomenal job.
For those curious, the surge in activity broke a number of things. Here are just a few:
> modmail surpassing 80,000+ messages resulting in modmail going down
> constant threads hitting 100,000 comments resulting in slow loading site-wide
> automoderator getting backlogged and taking 30+ minutes to parse comments leading to terrible comments getting through.
All these issues are now resolved, so once again, big thanks to the Reddit engineering team!
To be honest, I think the recent restrictions on trading specific stocks (on Robinhood etc.) is absolutely dumb. Apparently, the sort of crappy market manipulation that led to the 2008 Volkswagen "short squeeze" or the 2010 "flash crash" is absolutely fine because it was driven by traders. But an amateur mob performing the short squeeze must be stopped at all cost? What bullshit. Either the "casino" should be open to all, or rules that apply to the "amateur mob" should apply to the HFT and derivatives market as well.
Market manipulation. Loosely, market manipulation happens when you artificially influence the price of a stock, resulting in a personal gain. Buying stock with the intention of causing a short squeeze can be interpreted to fit that definition. I believe that WSB is creating artificial demand to try to "screw over" certain institutional investors. I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal interpretation.
> Apparently, the sort of crappy market manipulation that led to the 2008 Volkswagen "short squeeze" or the 2010 "flash crash" is absolutely fine because it was driven by traders.
How were they "absolutely fine?" You do know that regulators attempted to prosecute the traders/executives responsible for the 2008 VW short squeeze [1], and successfully prosecuted a trader for the 2010 flash crash [2]? For the VW short squeeze, regulators were not able to find evidence that the traders involved intended to cause a short squeeze or engaged in any artificial demand; they actually demanded the stock because they sought to take over VW. This is also evidenced by the fact the Porsche sold stock on the open market once they released that a squeeze was happening [3].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/ad782326-ed02-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash
[3] https://www.ft.com/content/0a58b63a-4294-3e07-8390-c3aabef39...
Every purchase influences the market, and results in gain, otherwise people would not be buying, and selling things.
Every purchase, is a market manipulation by the definition.
Well, I don't think this would hold up in court. Both the SEC and courts have made a distinction in the past between "real demand" (i.e. demand motivated because you think the stock is undervalued) and "artificial demand" (i.e. demand that is not based on any underlying analysis, but instead motivated because you intend to trigger other market mechanisms, including coverings of short positions). Like most legal definitions, the actual definition is hazy, and courts may have established legal tests. Read Matt Levine for a nuanced analysis [1].
Again, not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-w...
They should not be.
These guys have full understanding how laughable it the attempt to judge somebody by pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind, and yet they do it.
But historical cases don't peer into people's minds. They look at evidence, such as texts in chat rooms that show clear intent to manipulate. See the Libor scandal chats [1], where one trader wrote "its just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money" and "its a cartel now in london."
I think it's unlikely that the SEC will be able to successfully prosecute WSB traders, though, due to lack of evidence. It's also probably not even worth their time.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/why-bank...
Bill Ackman went on CNBC last year in near tears saying the end was coming, helping stocks continue their nose dive...all the while he was buying tons and tons of stocks which he turned into billions. How is that allowed but people on a message board sharing positions and high number of short floats isn't? There is literally, and has been for a long time, a website that tells you the short interest in a stock. It's sole purpose is to help people find short squeezes. That's why you have stats like "days to cover."
It shouldn't be allowed without proper disclosure on their actual positions. The SEC has prosecuted people in the past for making public statements while taking the other direction without proper disclosure.
I believe that this should be investigated by the SEC, but it likely may not since, at the direction of the Trump administration, the SEC has instead focused their efforts on other financial crimes.
There a difference between "This stock is going down. (I buy long because I know something I'm not saying)" and "This stock is going down. (I buy short because I believe what I say)"
This is essentially Reddit saying "This stock is going up, so buy options to exacerbate that and to profit." No misrepresentation.
If the SEC doesn't like this, they should fix the underlying market structure that makes this action possible. Effectively: what allows the traders to create leverage by abusing / forcing brokers to take specific actions.
Or just give up and accept that by digitizing markets we're past the rubicon to smart trading and predatory pack algorithms being successful.
> This is essentially Reddit saying "This stock is going up, so buy options to exacerbate that and to profit." No misrepresentation.
I see threads where WSB is saying "This stock is going up, and if we make it go up more, hedge funds & market makers will have to buy more stock to cover their short positions, and therefore it will go up even further [and we will make more money]." That's the manipulative part — creating artificial prices to induce even more demand.
Is it manipulation if you're so predictable that an action by me causes you to always act a certain way? And I profit when you take that action?
If hedge funds refused to cover their shorts (I'm probably using the wrong terminology) and left them open, this wouldn't be an issue, no? Or, conversely, if market makers refused to sell options on overly volatile stocks / stocks being manipulated?
It depends, but approximately, yes if there was any intent to exploit that fact. See spoofing, other prosecutions for creating short squeezes, etc.
https://dealbreaker.com/2012/06/phil-falcones-alleged-piggis...
The rationale is that markets are better for participants when their prices are accurate and reflect true supply and demand. Price manipulation subverts that, so the SEC disallows it (except in some cases where manipulation is explicitly allowed for historical reasons).
> refused to cover their shorts (I'm probably using the wrong terminology) and left them open, this wouldn't be an issue, no?
This is imprecise; hedge funds might cover short positions to hedge further losses, or because their prime broker might require them to maintain a certain margin (to reduce counterparty risk). I have no experience in institutional investing, so that's a guess.
> Or, conversely, if market makers refused to sell options on overly volatile stocks / stocks being manipulated?
Market makers will increase a premium for options on "overly volatile stocks." If the risk is too high, then they may stop selling the options altogether. But the problem is — it's difficult to predict which next stock WSB might start manipulating. That's another issue. If regulatory agencies don't step in and prevent this type of manipulation, the premiums on all retail-adjacent options will be higher because of the increased risk and fear that a capricious WSB crowd might turn on a MM. That's bad for people who use options "correctly" — not for gambling, but as a way to hedge and reduce risk.
It's called activist investing. His fund did not buy stocks, but bought Credit Default Swaps to the tune of $27 million USD. In the event that the markets dropped, they were awarded massive gains if they exit position. They gained $1.3 billion.
Prior to exiting the position which was publicly released, he went on media outlets and promoted the idea of shutting down the economy. This is what activist investors do. They actively spread rumors that will help their positions.
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2020/03/26122842/P...
I'd be really interested in learning more about the Olympic level mental gymnastics one has to go through to write this off as O.K. but then turn around and say that a bunch of random people on an open public forum saying to buy an over-shorted stock is market manipulation. They don't even have the purchasing power to make a difference here.
Again, I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not a legal interpretation or legal advice; just my personal opinion.
Motivation and intent are the main factors in determining manipulation. So there are two cases:
1. A trader buys stock, seeking to profit, because they believe that a short squeeze may be incoming soon.
2. A trader buys stock, seeking to profit, because they intend to drive the stock price up, thereby causing a short squeeze.
(1) is legal (in my understanding; see the disclaimers above). (2) is not. They differ in their intents. The first one is "legitimate" demand, the second is "artificial."
Now, it's difficult to prove intent in court. And clearly, many people in WSB legitimately are buying the stock because of (1). But there are some who are doing (2). They have plausible deniability, though, and that's why it's unlikely that anyone in WSB will be successfully prosecuted without more concrete evidence.
> The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as "transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security".
It is my opinion that this demand is not artificial, it is genuine, although caused by factors other than the inherent value of the stock itself.
If this is considered to be 'creating an artificial price', I don't see how a position where 140% of the shares of a company are shorted could not be, meaning significantly wider implications than just a single subreddit.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/683/usa-is-i-am-not-...
Also, are you a lawyer, and is that legal advice? :)
There are no repurcussions for not having that antiquated disclaimer. Which wouldn't hold up even if there was some magic that allowed a case to be brought
Most likely this will be like accessibility to poker online and in casinos which don't profit off the game directly interestingly in the 2000s. A lot of people got involved. A few made a lot of money and the rest went to do other things after a while.
And I did, because I'm a registered investor. But this isn't available to most people, only the top 10%.
I'm not sure I'd call it keeling over to "public" pressure.
That's bullshit.
The principle, and thus the the right to free speech is the fundamental value of a free country. Hiding behind the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" is nonsense when the vast majority of communication flows through them.
I'm wondering though what happens if section 230 was modified to only allow for filtering and removal of spam (I'm expecting wiggle here in how it's abused) and illegal content.
Look at Visa going after porn and private sex work.
This entire culture of trying to control what others can say via deplatformization is neoliberal fascism.
Bad things get said. But free speech protects all of us from tyranny, and we have to defend it. Because they'll come after you and your ideas next.
Americans have thick skin, or at least most of us do. It's a consequence of our liberty, and it's a defining trait of our system.
If you leave the responsibility of Free Speech to the Free Market then you end up having freedom of press only for the people who own one.
That's how things have traditionally been in the US, is it not? As far as I know there was never any law that would force me to allow someone else to use my (literal) printing press.
The exception is the FCC fairness doctrine, but the basis for that was that the "printing press" (RF allocations) is actually a common good, and was only granted to private interests in exchange for certain concessions.
The hard part is getting that corp to own anything of value, since it starts with just the money you put in. But this is still a viable path to wealth for people with time horizons measured in years rather than days. (And all the people who want immediate gratification provides a fairly large market to trade with.)
E.g: I run a stock newsletter. I hire a boxer, Evander Tyson, to hype a biotech penny stock, Scampill Co.. Tyson says to his followers and to my newsletter subscribers that Scampill is about to get a drug approved by the FDA that will cure cancer. I and my friends at Scampill make sure that the patsies have enough stock to buy when I put out my first email blast. When the stock goes up 900% we sell our shares. At that point there are no more large lots on the market, the spreads widen, and the price collapse occurs.
The SEC then sends their feds after me, the boxer I hired, and my friends, the insiders at Scampill. If they can catch me, I do some time in club Fed and have to pay some fines.
In this instance, there is no insider collusion, there is no single promoter with an interest, and there is no commonality to build a class among the redditors etc. who participated in the manipulation. You have a mixture of people who may have said illegal things and people who had totally licit (in the eyes of the law) motivations and actions. You have a big mixture there of mens rae and its absence and a big mixture of types of actus reus and the lack thereof. It is a big mess as compared to making a case against the typical P&D mob scheme.
Yet, you have an outcome that is somewhat similar to a classic P&D, and on a regulated marketplace, whereas most P&Ds happen on less regulated over the counter markets.
I am genuinely interested in the physicality of how that would play out. A mob with pitchforks makes a run at a Facebook HQ. Do they kidnap employees until they find one with the access to re-initialize the account? I guess they would have to keep the hostages forever, else the accounts be disabled again the next day. Do they setup a camp outside with the declared intent to launch an attack should certain accounts not get enough likes? How long could that last? Or do they break into a datacenter and attempt to do it themselves? I'm reminded of that iMac scene in Zoolander.
― Warren Buffett
They're using the "terrorist" word already in many cases.
Furthermore, this comment is offensive. Let's please not pretend that Facebook and Twitter were "looking for an excuse" before deplatforming Trump. They were entirely justified and would have been justified in doing so many years before they eventually did so.
Let's also not put the word "incite" in dick quotes barely three weeks after an insurrection and attempted coup. There was actual incitement of violence in that case.
No, that doesn't follow.
Very similar to 9/11 except less casualties thankfully. Just an interesting observation of how much control screens can exert then vs now. More are connected with constant access. We need better screen diets.
Or this one: BLM hasn't caused any deaths, to date; the Capitol (capitalized, btw, and with an "o") insurrection caused 5 and could easily have resulted in the assassination of various senior government officials.
Or this one: BLM protests involved tens of millions of citizens across all walks of life and were prompted by very real social problems with police murdering black people; the Capitol riot was prompted by fascism and white supremacy.
Do I need to go on?
Isn’t declaring part of the sovereign territory of the United States to be an autonomous zone sort of similar?
If you're proud to be a fascist and white supremacist then this doesn't make someone not want to be one. If you're not then you'd be offended by that accusation that you are one. It's a polarising statement that target's an individual's identity, not their actions. It was an ad hominem attack.
Had you made reference to the disinformation campaign surrounding the election results or the President's remarks that actively fanned the flames of their outrage (outrage that they certainly perceived as legitimate but the rest of us know was misguided) then that would be a very different argument. It would be one that forgave regular people for being people and targeted those truly responsible. It's an argument that invites people to agree with you rather than making them the enemy.
Your statement is dense with issues:
1. You're comparing a single "protest" to a protest movement. Also, where did you get a figure like "12-19"?
2. There are documented and confirmed cases of capitol-riot-type people using the BLM protests as cover for violence (e.g. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-man-accused-o... and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...). The attempts to blame the capital riots on "antifa" are groundless.
3. The capitol rioters deliberately struck at the democratic process itself (e.g. process of conducting a fair election) because they rejected the results of that process, which is a far more serious thing than any traditional protest, no matter how violent.
2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
No, there wasn't just a single incident. Just to give some examples off the top of my head: large groups of III%ers participated in both the Capitol Attack and Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and the BLM counter-protests were arguably part of the same phenomenon (and one of them shot three people in Kenosha).
> 2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
That's a sloppy reading of what I said. I merely pointed out a fact that makes attribution of violence that occurred at the protests difficult.
> 3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
It's pretty obvious that it wasn't an "attack on democracy" because they made reform demands to elected officials and were cooperating with the government:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/seattle-autonomous-zon...
> The protest zone has increasingly functioned with the tacit blessing of the city. Harold Scoggins, the fire chief, was there on Wednesday, chatting with protesters, helping set up a call with the Police Department and making sure the area had portable toilets and sanitation services....
> The demonstrators have also been trying to figure it out, with various factions voicing different priorities. A list of three demands was posted prominently on a wall: one, defund the Police Department; two, fund community health; and three, drop all criminal charges against protesters.
In comparison, the capitol attackers setup a gallows and were chanting things like "Hang Mike Pence," because he wouldn't unconstitutionally override the election (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi..., https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/15/mike-pence-cl...). The sloppy false equivalences to deflect away from that are getting old.
2) In the same vein, there seems to be only one actual victim of protester violence at the capitol, and that one also looks more like an accident (got hit in the head with a thrown item, which is of course a stupidly dangerous attack, but also common at BLM riots)
3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
Also, there are videos from the capitol of security staff chatting with the protesters. So I guess they were also cooperating, and hence, by your logic, democratic.
Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
We'll see about that when he goes to trial.
> And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims.
Which is what you're doing. Why arbitrarily lump together BLM and looters, when it could make more sense to consider them different groups that happen to be in the same area reacting in their own ways to the same circumstances?
> 3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
The point is it's not a succession if you continue to recognize the government by calling on it to reform.
> Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
Yep.
Lee Keltner
Aaron "Jay" Danielson
Garret Foster
Tyler Gerth
David Dorn
Victor Cazares Jr
Secoriea Turner
....
And that's just a small sampling.
Do I need to go on?
Lee Keltner - Killed in Denver by the hired security guard for a journalist.
Aaron Danielson - Killed at dueling protests by self identifying anti-facist (antifa)
Garret Foster - He was a BLM protestor killed by an active Army sergeant.
Tyler Gerth- he was a protest photographer killed by a guy with a grudge over an argument.
David Dorn - Not killed by BLM The protests were several miles away and had disbanded a few hours earlier near the Metropolitan Police Headquarters downtown after clashes between police and a few remaining agitators turned violent
Do I really have to go on?
You make it sound like those on your list were killed BLM mobs and a modicum of investigation makes it obvious you lack perspective. Those that marched on the Capitol were indeed a mob.
When: 2 people died as a result of strokes. No participation in the riot.
1 person trampled by the rioters. 1 unarmed person shot by the police. 1 police officer dead due to being struck in the head.
So clearly, only 2 people died as a consequence of the riots, per your logic.
CHAZ was even one step further.
In Atlanta BLM protestors set up an armed road block. Several people were shot there culminating in the shooting death of a 9 year old girl.
Calm down, Bud.
I appreciate your clarification, however. I withdraw my assertion that you were trying to minimize what happened on January 6th. And I apologize.
I was going to say "Calm down, Francis," as per the old movie Stripes, and then changed it, but neither would have been helpful. I apologize too.