01-31-2021, 11:17 PM
Ted King wrote:
[quote=sekker]
I’ve dug into this a bit, there is nothing illegal about being enthusiastic about a stock and buying it and then telling others. In fact, this has historically been encouraged by everyone involved.
Hedge funds managers do it all the time too. In fact, although one fund has taken a big hit, there were MANY hedge funds involved who all talked about this (as they do to try to demonstrate the ‘value’ to short selling).
In this case, all the enthusiasts are doing is doubling down, while forcing the hedge funds to also double or 10x their risk.
There's an interesting Twitter thread by a securities law professor that delves into grounds for a possible SEC investigation into this:
https://twitter.com/JamesFTierney/status...0460561411
sekker wrote:
As for section 230, all that needs changing is to block algorithmic presentation of data by the platform to users. Just let it be chronicled according to user postings and preferences. If Facebook wants to then mess with how data is shown - they have clearly manipulated what users see, and they are now a publisher and have moved out of 230 jurisdiction.
That simple change would keep MRF board just fine while forcing moderation of algorithms, which is our key issue.
That sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure what ramifications that has on what speech would be allowed and not allowed. Could you expand on that.
The whole point is that it is the automatic and algorithmic amplification of selected speech that is the point. The US has ALWAYs had conspiracy theorists and zealots; but there is a consequence of publishers amplifying those voices for example. Under section 230, platforms can selectively amplify without the same consequences.