Gme

[Spartanmack]

I meant the 1st one.
I guess some Canadian broker on CNBC said they did it to protect themselves

I don't normally agree with Canadians but that seems to be the most logical explanation.

 

[sggatecl]

Google just deleted about 100,000 negative app reviews of RobinHood on their store earlier today.

 

[Michchamp]

Google just deleted about 100,000 negative app reviews of RobinHood on their store earlier today.

Approves.

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure how I feel about Robinhood. I first learned of it when that poor kid killed himself after not understanding the nature of one of his trades.

Then I read this column about how many firms in the chain can front run on Robinhood's users' orders, and thought of the maxim about how if a service is free, that means you're the product (another example would be facebook).

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm getting confused...so we're picking and choosing which censorial actions are OK and which are not? So far it's ok to deplatform an individual including the president, remove an app (Parler) from your store (even after it's shown what they were removed for actually happened on Twitter and FB) but it's basically on par with the Cultural Revolution when they censor market manipulators' negative reviews of companies that sell the data they collect.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm getting confused...so we're picking and choosing which censorial actions are OK and which are not? So far it's ok to deplatform an individual including the president, remove an app (Parler) from your store (even after it's shown what they were removed for actually happened on Twitter and FB) but it's basically on par with the Cultural Revolution when they censor market manipulators' negative reviews of companies that sell the data they collect.

Yes, I believe google deleting "market manipulators" review is equal to the Cultural Revolution. How do you really feel about that?

"Selling the data they collect" is a fun way to downplay the fact that they - posing as an unbiased middle man here to allow unsophisticated investors to trade for cheap - are selling it to people who can profit off those same trades.

Fiduciary duty to investors? You mean muppets? how can we buy so much cocaine and sex if we has that?

If lawyers tried to run a scheme like this with their clients' funds, they'd be disbarred in a year, if not sooner...

 

[Spartanmack]

Yes, I believe google deleting "market manipulators" review is equal to the Cultural Revolution. How do you really feel about that?

"Selling the data they collect" is a fun way to downplay the fact that they - posing as an unbiased middle man here to allow unsophisticated investors to trade for cheap - are selling it to people who can profit off those same trades.

Fiduciary duty to investors? You mean muppets? how can we buy so much cocaine and sex if we has that?

If lawyers tried to run a scheme like this with their clients' funds, they'd be disbarred in a year, if not sooner...

I think it's all censorial and wrong - legal maybe but still wrong. You should try being consistent once - you might gain a shred of credibility. Also, Robinhood is not a fiduciary, they're not advisors but thanks for the 8 year old unrelated article.

Edit: it should be obvious, but just in case, this is not a defense of Robinhood. I think what they do should be illegal if it's not already - frontrunning is illegal and there's no other reason that the data they sell would be valuable or as valuable if not for the express purpose of frontrunning, so they're effectively aiding and abetting illegal activity and making a profit doing it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

they're effectively aiding and abetting illegal activity and making a profit doing it.

Meanwhile, there's Congress

 

[Spartanmack]

don't look now, GME back over $360 up 80%+ on the day.

 

[sggatecl]

I'm getting confused...so we're picking and choosing which censorial actions are OK and which are not? So far it's ok to deplatform an individual including the president, remove an app (Parler) from your store (even after it's shown what they were removed for actually happened on Twitter and FB) but it's basically on par with the Cultural Revolution when they censor market manipulators' negative reviews of companies that sell the data they collect.

If I'd have said 'Google shouldn't be able to do that, that should be illegal' your argument would make sense. But I didn't. They're shitheads for doing so but I don't think it was a violation of my rights like Parlermites/Trumpets claim. Huge difference.

The free market decided Parler and Trump, on those specific platforms, can pound sand and gtfo. They can go find another platform or host. And they will.

don't look now, GME back over $360 up 80%+ on the day.

Nasdaq founder was on TV at some point today, I saw a clip, and he was asking for regulations concerning retail investing.

You KNOW they're in a bad place when Wall Street itself is asking for regulation. That's fucking hilarious. Let it all burn.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Nasdaq founder was on TV at some point today, I saw a clip, and he was asking for regulations concerning retail investing.

You KNOW they're in a bad place when Wall Street itself is asking for regulation. That's fucking hilarious. Let it all burn.

If the free trade platforms are funded by harvesting data, and that was profitable, you'd think they wouldn't want to risk killing the golden goose. Exposing that they're aligned with the hedge funds (whether coincidentally or not) is a big deal. I don't expect Congress to do anything but talk.

It would be great if Wall St. was so short sighted they asked for regulation, but you'd think they'd benefit more long term without it.

 

[Spartanmack]

If I'd have said 'Google shouldn't be able to do that, that should be illegal' your argument would make sense. But I didn't. They're shitheads for doing so but I don't think it was a violation of my rights like Parlermites/Trumpets claim. Huge difference.

The free market decided Parler and Trump, on those specific platforms, can pound sand and gtfo. They can go find another platform or host. And they will.



Nasdaq founder was on TV at some point today, I saw a clip, and he was asking for regulations concerning retail investing.

You KNOW they're in a bad place when Wall Street itself is asking for regulation. That's fucking hilarious. Let it all burn.

I think a constitutional case could be made for freedom of speech on those platforms - debatable for sure but I would definitely disagree that it was the free market that decided on Parler and Trump - the free market would mete out it's justice consistently and equally and amazon would stop hosting twitter and FB and apple and google would remove them from their stores. Cancel culture is not what I would consider the free market.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think a constitutional case could be made for freedom of speech on those platforms - debatable for sure but I would definitely disagree that it was the free market that decided on Parler and Trump - the free market would mete out it's justice consistently and equally and amazon would stop hosting twitter and FB and apple and google would remove them from their stores. Cancel culture is not what I would consider the free market.

Free market is made up of people. Not magical consistency/equality machines. Inconsistent, unconsciously discriminatory people.

 

[sggatecl]

the free market would mete out it's justice consistently and equally and amazon would stop hosting twitter and FB and apple and google would remove them from their stores. Cancel culture is not what I would consider the free market.

That's some real pie in the sky talk. It sounds like you have your vision of the free market and what the free market actually is mixed up. Businesses will always do what benefits them, whether that be for economic, political, or ideological reasons.

Free market is made up of people. Not magical consistency/equality machines. Inconsistent, unconsciously discriminatory people.

100%

 

[Michchamp]

I think a constitutional case could be made for freedom of speech on those platforms - debatable for sure but I would definitely disagree that it was the free market that decided on Parler and Trump - the free market would mete out it's justice consistently and equally and amazon would stop hosting twitter and FB and apple and google would remove them from their stores. Cancel culture is not what I would consider the free market.

The Constitution's right to free speech only applies to restrict government actions, not private sector actions. It's not debatable.



You can go read the constitution yourself and 1st Amendment jurisprudence if you don't believe me...



You can argue these companies have essentially privatized a public space, and should be either broken up, or forced to accept viewpoint neutral regulations, like the government used to force broadcasters to accept up until 1987, but you've taken this position that government forcing business to do anything is bad, and the "free market" alone can and should deliver good things, so you've really painted yourself in a corner here...


The "Free market" - by the way - is a construct that only exists in economics courses.

 

[sggatecl]

The "Free market" - by the way - is a construct that only exists in economics courses.

It's a religion to many.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's some real pie in the sky talk. It sounds like you have your vision of the free market and what the free market actually is mixed up. Businesses will always do what benefits them, whether that be for economic, political, or ideological reasons.



100%

not really, at least in the case of Parler. According to what I've read, Parler was removed because their platform was used to coordinate the riot at Congress but I read a piece that said the feds indicated it was mostly planned on FB and Twitter. Parler, as far as I know is still not available but nobody is taking any action against FB or Twitter.

I don't think I'm the one that's got it mixed up - it's a common misconception that what we actually have is a free market. It's not. I think in the long run, caving to cancel culture will prove to be not in the best interests of these businesses.

 

[sggatecl]

I don't think I'm the one that's got it mixed up - it's a common misconception that what we actually have is a free market.

Shhh. You'll wake the Libertarians up.

 

[Michchamp]

Shhh. You'll wake the Libertarians up.

Fortunately, we really only have one of those here, and he hasn't posted in this thread.

 

[Spartanmack]

The Constitution's right to free speech only applies to restrict government actions, not private sector actions. It's not debatable.

It is debatable.

You can go read the constitution yourself and 1st Amendment jurisprudence if you don't believe me...



You can argue these companies have essentially privatized a public space, and should be either broken up, or forced to accept viewpoint neutral regulations, like the government used to force broadcasters to accept up until 1987, but you've taken this position that government forcing business to do anything is bad, and the "free market" alone can and should deliver good things, so you've really painted yourself in a corner here...


The "Free market" - by the way - is a construct that only exists in economics courses.

no, I haven't - that's something you've made up so you can argue against it and feel like you've made a point. Most of the time, it's bad or the government gets it wrong, but I've never said I'm against all regulation.

Whether it only exists in textbooks or classrooms doesn't change the fact that what we have isn't a free market and it's also not true to say that certain entities were deplatformed by the free market.

 

[Spartanmack]

Shhh. You'll wake the Libertarians up.

I'll take them over the socialists any day.