Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord

from the join-us dept

Join the Insider Discord with a Watercooler or Behind The Curtain membership!

Techdirt has been around for nearly 25 years at this point, and we have an unfortunate habit of being just slightly too far ahead of the technology curve. The site was launched before the word blog even existed, and certainly before there were readily available and easy to use tools for creating a blog (more on that soon!), so we cobbled together our own solution. We've done that with unfortunate frequency. In the early 2000s, we even built our own internal RSS reader in order to find stories (I always thought it was better than Google Reader). And, a while back, we launched the Techdirt "Insider Chat" long before Discord or Slack or other such tools were popular.

The Techdirt Insider Chat was a widget on our site that, if you supported us at certain levels in our own Insider Shop (or on Patreon), you got access to a chat that only those supporters could use -- but which was still displayed on the sidebar for anyone to see. Because there weren't widespread tools to make this possible, we built our own. But it was a bit clunky and limited, and honestly wasn't receiving that much use beyond a handful of dedicated users.

Over the last few months, we've moved the Insider Chat over to Discord, which has become the standard these days for community chats. However, we did want to still include the feature of displaying the chat publicly -- but only allowing actual supporters to participate. So while we are now using Discord as the basis of the chat (which is much easier for many people to use, has many more features, and allows for things like accessing the chat on mobile devices), we built our own embeddable widget that reflects the chat in the sidebar (which you can see if you look over to the right).

If you're interested in (1) supporting Techdirt and (2) joining in on the conversations now happening in the chat and (3) connecting with others in the Techdirt community, please consider supporting us at a level that includes the Insider Chat.

As you'll recall, earlier this year we removed all the ads (and Google tracking code) from Techdirt. We are relying more and more on our community supporting us going forward, and we're working hard to provide those supporters with more useful and fun features, including this new Discord community.

Filed Under: chat, insider chat, techdirt
Companies: discord, techdirt

Discord Takes Over Moderation Of r/WallStreetBets Server As Facebook Shuts Down Popular Stock Trading Group

from the everything-is-content-moderation dept

Apparently every damn story has a content moderation angle these days. The still ongoing GameStonks! story keeps getting more and more fascinating in all sorts of ways. Yesterday, we noted as a side note, that Discord had shut down the r/WallStreetBets server that many of the subreddit users had used to communicate. Discord claimed -- somewhat unbelievably -- that it had done so at this very moment because of a long term "hate speech" problem on that server.

But, then, a day later, Discord said it had re-enabled the server... but that the company itself was helping to moderate the server.

Discord staff are actively working with the server’s team to help with moderation. At least one Discord staffer, who is now in the new WallStreetBets server, is also helping with infrastructure problems related to the rapid growth the community is experiencing.

“WallStreetBets members have set up a new server and we are working with them,” says a Discord spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We will welcome the group back so long as they improve their moderation practices and follow our Community Guidelines. We have reached out to the moderators to provide them with support and advice, like we do for many of our large communities.”

This is kind of fascinating. We've always been interested in moderation setups at places like Reddit and Discord, because they show a different overall structure than the kind of content moderation questions we're used to seeing at Facebook/Twitter/YouTube. In those latter cases, it's one company who just sets the rules. But with Reddit and Discord, while there are company-wide rules, since those services are made up of mostly individual communities, the moderation is effectively left up to those who run those communities (the mods on Reddit or the server owner/admins on Discord).

But, here, Discord is stepping in to help with the moderating. And it's interesting that the company claims that it has done this "for many of our large communities" as well. It appears to be something of a hybrid model, though that raises a bunch of other questions as well. Still, it's interesting to see how these things evolve. And, at least at a first pass, this new setup appears to be working better than the old one:

There are now fewer people screaming in calls, using racial slurs, or blasting music to the hundreds listening in. The memes are now mainly emoji and text, rather than images that often included offensive material.

Meanwhile, the Stonks! trading content moderation questions are spreading. Facebook announced that it has shut down a popular stock trading group... but for a reason you might not have expected:

Allen Tran, a 23-year-old from Chicago who created Robinhood Stock Traders, said he woke up on Wednesday to a notification that Facebook had disabled the 157,000-member group. The notification, seen by Reuters, said without detail that the group violated policies on “adult sexual exploitation.”

Wait... what? Tran notes that he cannot recall any "adult content" ever appearing in the group. It's possible that someone at Facebook clicked the wrong button or something, but it's still bizarre. And, at the very least, will contribute to the various conspiracy theories about big companies ganging up to shutdown retail investors who had suddenly found the loophole to make hedge fund folks sweat a little.

Filed Under: content moderation, stonks, wallstreetbets, wsb
Companies: discord, reddit

Robinhood App Decides To Stop Helping The Poor Steal From The Rich

from the everything-is-a-content-moderation-story dept

I had been meaning to do another story on the whole GameStop/Reddit/WallStreetBets story, because there's a lot of really fascinating points on this, but my original story got pretty much wiped away this morning when Robinhood, the popular stock trading app that promotes itself as a way of democratizing stock trading and providing free trades -- and which was the main app used by Redditors to drive up the prices of various stocks that a bunch of hedge funds were trying to short -- announced that it was blocking the trades in all of the volatile stocks that Redditors were driving up. It did so in the most ridiculous of statements, claiming that they were pausing buying of those stocks to "[help] our customers navigate this uncertainty."

Amid significant market volatility, it’s important as ever that we help customers stay informed. That’s why we’re committed to providing people with educational resources. We recently revamped and expanded Robinhood Learn to help people take advantage of the hundreds of financial resources we offer and educate themselves, including how to make sense of a volatile market. In 2020, more than 3.2 million people read our articles through Robinhood Learn.

We’re committed to helping our customers navigate this uncertainty. We fundamentally believe that everyone should have access to financial markets. We’re humbled to have helped many people invest in the markets for the first time. And we’re determined to provide new and experienced investors with the tools and resources to help them invest responsibly for their long-term financial futures.

Bull and Shit. The people buying into this stuff didn't need help "navigating this uncertainty." This was a protest. This actually was what happens when you "democratize finance" and stop letting the big giant firms abuse the system for profit. And it turns out that that's not what Robinhood really wanted after all.

As incredible as it seems, it turns out that even this is a content moderation story.

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that Robinhood is going to be hit with a whole bunch of class action lawsuits, probably before the day is out. (Actually, they were hit by lawsuits before even this post was out!)

Many people have recognized that while there's a lot going on here, at least some of what's happening is legitimately smaller individual investors giving a big giant "fuck you" to the big Wall Street hedge funds that were treating the market as a plaything with which to get ever richer. I heard someone jokingly note yesterday that Reddit and Robinhood together accounted for more wealth distribution from the rich to the poor in the past week than the Democratic Party has in years.

And, like every other time that gatekeepers' walls are knocked down, the gatekeepers freak out. This is Hollywood freaking out about Napster all over again. Yesterday the big news was that Discord banned the r/WallStreetBets server, which was where many of the Redditors were gathering (outside of Reddit). The company claimed -- somewhat ridiculously -- that the ban was for hate speech on the server. But the timing of it made that look like a very weak fig leaf. Considering how many gamers use Discord (its original target market), I can assure you that other servers have a lot more hate speech than the WallStreetBets one did.

Then, last night, we had the totally expected old school "Hollywood reacting to Napster" response when NASDAQ's CEO, Adena Friedman, said that they should halt trading in GameStop and the other targeted stocks to allow investors to "recalibrate their positions."

Funny how they never seem to do that when it's retail investors losing their investments.

As with other situations, the events of the past few days only serve to underline how the system itself is rigged to help the big guys on Wall Street, and the second that everyone else figures out how to game the system themselves, the gatekeepers freak out and look to reassert control.

Filed Under: content moderation, gatekeepers, hedge funds, retail investors, stonks, wallstreetbets
Companies: discord, gamestop, reddit, robinhood

FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies

from the this-could-have-been-helpful dept

On Monday, the FTC announced that it was issuing what's known as 6(b) orders to nine social media and video streaming companies, demanding a fairly massive amount of information regarding their data collection and usage policies, as well as their advertising practices. To me, this is a huge missed opportunity. If the FTC is truly trying to gain a better understanding of data collection, privacy, and advertising practices, perhaps to better inform Congress on how to, say, pass a truly comprehensive (and useful?!?) privacy legislation, then there are ways to do that. But this... is not that. This looks like a weird fishing expedition for a ton of unrelated information, from an odd selection of nine companies, many of whom are in a very different business than the others. It leaves me quite perplexed.

First, let's look at the odd selection of companies. The letters are going to:

• Amazon (apparently including Twitch)
• Bytedance (TikTok)
• Discord
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Snap
• Twitter
• WhatsApp (owned by Facebook)
• YouTube

Okay, so they've definitely focused on many of the big players, but they've also left out a ton as well. Where's LinkedIn? Or Github? Or WeChat? Or Pinterest? Or Quora? They list Facebook and Whatsapp... but not Instagram? Where's Zoom? Now it's true that sometimes the FTC will randomly sample a bunch of companies in a particular industry to get a look at certain practices -- but for that to make sense, you want to sample from a set of similarly situated companies. This is... not that.

For the smaller companies on the list, such as Reddit and Discord, the FTC demanding they file a ton of paperwork in a very short time frame is going to mean a tremendous waste of time.

The second concern is the broad nature of the requests. The "sample order" is massive. There are 53 separate requests, many with multiple sub-parts. They're not just asking for specific information, but rather going on what appears to be an incredibly broad fishing expedition for information about a wide variety of practices at all of these companies -- including broad demands for future strategies and plans. For example, beyond just information on the number of users, it demands all documents relating to "business strategies or plans," "research and development efforts," "strategies or plans to reduce costs, improve products or services..." It also seems to be demanding all "presentations to management committees, executive committees, and boards of directors."

That feels like a fishing expedition, rather than an attempt to actually understand data collection and usage practices.

There are categories of information included here that I think it would be useful for the FTC to understand. But there's just so much information requested that it seems likely to bury the useful information.

The one FTC Commissioner who dissented from this effort, Noah Joshua Phillips, raises important questions in his dissent:

Effective 6(b) orders look carefully at business practices in which companies engage in a manner designed to elicit information, understand it, and then present it to the public in way that is usable and can form a basis for sound public policy.

The first step is to select a group of recipients that will permit such examination, usually a group of firms engaged in conduct that can be compared. But the logic behind the choice of recipients here is not clear at all. The 6(b) orders target nine entities: Facebook, WhatsApp, Snap, Twitter, YouTube, ByteDance, Twitch, Reddit, and Discord. These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And the orders omit other companies engaged in business practices similar to recipients, for example, Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr, not to mention other firms the data practices of which have drawn significant government concern, like WeChat. The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies and, by limiting the number to nine, avoiding the review process required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not triggered if fewer than ten entities are subject to requests.

Phillips calls out the same broad demands I raised above regarding business plans, R&D and presentations, noting:

Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach. And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications.

And, finally, he highlights how this effort is just demanding way too much information to be of use for a comprehensive policy recommendation:

The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information—yet another feature proper oversight and public comment could have flagged. Rather than a carefully calibrated set of specifications designed to elicit information that the agency could digest and analyze as a basis for informing itself, Congress, stakeholders, and the public, these 6(b) orders instead are sprawling and scattershot. Their over 50 specifications, most with numerous and detailed subparts, address topics including, but not limited to: advertising (reach, revenue, costs, and number and type); consumer data (collection, use, storage, disclosure, and deletion); as noted above, all strategic, financial, and research plans; algorithms and data analytics; user engagement and content moderation; demographic information; relationships with other services; and children and teens (policies, practices, and procedures).

Recipients of 6(b) orders typically negotiate to limit their productions, to tailor them in light of their specific business models and business practices. Perhaps the Commission will push back on attempts to do so, devoting additional lawyers to litigating the orders and having a federal judge oversee them, rather than OIRA. Or negotiation may reduce the burdens. But if that happens, each recipient will be responding to a different set of negotiated specifications. That certain of the companies in question have very different business models makes this even more likely. The end result of that is, say, the agency learning a lot about one recipient’s advertising practices, but not as much about its algorithms. For another recipient, the agency might receive information about privacy practices but very little about its plans to expand. Each of the nine recipients will produce differing, if any, amounts of information to each of the 50-plus specifications.

I actually think it would be a good thing for the FTC to better understand how these companies work and their practices. I think it could be useful for them to gain such an understanding, and then make recommendations on a comprehensive federal privacy law. But I don't see how this fishing expedition does any of that. Instead, it just asks for basically everything and the kitchen sink from a somewhat random selection of companies, some of whom will have difficulty producing all of this information.

Filed Under: data, data collection, data protection, fishing expedition, ftc, privacy, social media, video streaming
Companies: amazon, bytedance, discord, facebook, reddit, snap, tiktok, twitch, twitter, whatsapp, youtube