Someone likely paid the platforms and/or admins to take them down
From the point of view of someone with no stake in the outcome, the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action
> the possibility some WSB regulars' strategy for cashing out their profits was based around these newbies being encouraged to buy as much GSE as possible probably isn't an argument in favour of delaying action
That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant.
Sure, punitive sanctions are more likely to be taken when the volume of complaints goes up, the trolling goes up and the forum ceases to be an insider's club and starts being representative of how your platform is perceived by the general public. That's been the case for every platform ever and particularly recently, with no conspiracies involving Wall St bribery required.
> That argument would make sense if the justification of the ban had been about legality, not use of language. If it's about use of language then it's not relevant.
It's an obvious retort to the suggestion Discord could have delayed enforcement action until after it blew over [if they weren't in cahoots with Wall St]. The only reason to delay when they're getting complaints now is to help one set of their users unload financial positions onto another, so keeping it open until that happens shouldn't be a consideration precisely because it's irrelevant to their stated reason for the ban.
(I mean, I'm sure Discord had internal discussions about the legal liability of [not] taking action whilst people pumped stocks too, but the answer was likely 'none whatsoever, do whatever you think is best for your reputation')
> Discord says it did not ban the server for financial fraud — rather, it was banned because it continued to allow “hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings.”
Not saying it isn't true, but what I am saying is that it puts in stark relief all the servers they are NOT banning due to similar/worse behavior.
How long are we going to keep falling for this same shtick?
Seriously, are you naïve or is this bad faith? I can't tell anymore.
If your entire justification for something boils down to "I'm technically allowed to do this" it should be pretty obvious that you're doing something shitty.
How so? "Institutions will publicly blame hate speech as an excuse to do things they wanted to do otherwise" in no way requires an assumption that "hate speech doesn't exist on the internet."
Of course we can't say for sure. But at the same time we can't say for sure that specific policemen were actually racist when they attacked black people, or if they would do the same thing against white people in similar situation. You can find statistical patterns there, but similarly you can also find statistical patterns that certain groups on message boards gets banned for less than certain other groups.