Linus should stop his $GME "Investment"

[LogicalDrm]

18 hours ago, genisboy said:

Okay guys. Linus should by now have lost atleast 50% of those 50K he "invested" this monday. Now i'm not saying that he will get in any legal trouble for this (cuz if he does the system is beyond corrupt) but I as a hedgefund lover and personal Gabe Plotkin (Melvin capital Hedgfund CEo) ADMIRER, have a few arguments against his stonk position. Please hear me out.

 

Linus is a public figure, okay? And LTT media group caters to alot of underage kidsss, that are very immature! Some of them see linus as some kind of weird rolemodel. Okay? You see what I'm saying? You get where I'm going with this? HE IS ACTUALLY PROMOTING GAMBLING TO MINORS Now now that does sound like something that could get him in court Just sayin...

 

TL;DR: Please sell $GME stock, I don't care about the others stonks u own.

 

-Sincerely yours  

 

Not yet a hegdefund manager

Merged with previous thread.

[JCBiggs]

They locked my thread.. but youre welcome to read my opinion below.     Funny how a different point of view on the same subject gets shut down. Guess it was inconvenient.   

 

It could very well be that due to his stature and audience that he is found guilty of market manipulation but Canadian laws could be different. No idea.  In the US, ignorance of the law doesnt make you immune to prosecution.  

I

 

[Mokshith BC]

1 hour ago, JCBiggs said:

They locked my thread.. but youre welcome to read my opinion below.     Funny how a different point of view on the same subject gets shut down. Guess it was inconvenient.   

 

It could very well be that due to his stature and audience that he is found guilty of market manipulation but Canadian laws could be different. No idea.  In the US, ignorance of the law doesnt make you immune to prosecution.  

I

 

hey that's his money and he knew he was gonna lose some of it. people go to casino even though  they know that they can loose all of it but who are you to stop them its their hard earned money and if they enjoy gambling money let them enjoy you ain't gonna pay them na why the hell you care. he didn't had anything when he started now he can flush 50k in the drain because he can and its his hard earned money and he deserves each and every penny of that. ya i agree that it would have been better if he donated it to some charity but he had promised that he would buy the stock and he did it and it was fun watching him explain to yvonne . At the end of the day its his money he can literally use it to wipe his ass if he wants to and no one gonna stop him. and no one is forced to work at LMG if they don't like him flushing 50k or they are getting paid less  they can happily leave lmg and start their own channel from scratch like linus and when they recruit some one they will pay similarly because they know how much effort is needed to bring up 5 channels from bottom rock and make 2-4 vids every day without compromising quality and giving honest opinion to viewers . then even they can flush 50k or make a golden toilet or a tissue  roll.   

[spartaman64]

21 hours ago, genisboy said:

He can't do this. He is a public figure and has to be regarded to a higher standard than normal people.  I am right. I am just. He'd die in court. Simple as that!!!

ok then back up your talk and take him to court LUL

[Quackers101]

If he did encourage others to get into it or certain stocks, then one could start to say he did try to do something.

Some of WSB is more in a legal trouble than what Linus would be? Also now since mostly everyone knows about this and people that might want to get in on the trend by themselves, if it's smart or not or just too late  

[Blade of Grass]

21 hours ago, papajo said:

Do they like to hit that particular button on the keyboard?  

No, but they know what a coordinate adjective is.
 

i.e. the correct way to list two adjectives which apply to a subject without using the word “and” between them. 
 

US laws about fiduciary duty are more relevant then UK laws, since ya know, we’re talking about US firms trading US stocks. And simply, the duty between a shorting hedge fund and the company they’re shorting is none. Step 1 of duty is having a relationship, someone shorting a stock need no relationship to do so. 

 

And yes, obviously these are complex topics, all I care about is that the simplification being used is mostly correct, instead of being mostly incorrect. Conversations are pretty meaningless when everything being said is false. Unsurprisingly, with the amount of incorrect information on this topic being throw around + baseless conclusions, it’s hard to have a good casual conversation on the topic. 

And just to be clear, I don’t blame people for not being able to see the BS being peddled for what it is. The chance that a regular person understands these topics is very low, since it’s not like anyone is particularly getting taught this in their primary schooling, nor do most people study this in secondary schooling if they do it, nor are they being exposed to it at work.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

The chance that a regular person understands these topics is very low

Hold on now. Judging by the comments I've seen online over the past week or so I thought that even someone with no prior knowledge about the stock market can become a fully learned stock investor by reading LTT and WSB for a couple of hours.

Are you seriously telling me that the hundreds of peoples commenting on this might actually be talking about things they don't understand? That they have a very simplistic and possibly incorrect view of things, and are overestimating their own understanding of the situation?

 

SurprisedPikachu.exe

[Loki0111]

20 hours ago, JCBiggs said:

They locked my thread.. but youre welcome to read my opinion below.     Funny how a different point of view on the same subject gets shut down. Guess it was inconvenient.   

 

It could very well be that due to his stature and audience that he is found guilty of market manipulation but Canadian laws could be different. No idea.  In the US, ignorance of the law doesnt make you immune to prosecution.  

I

 

No offense but your entire thread is ridiculous.

 

It can be summed as "I don't like how Linus spends his own personal money and I feel my bosses personal money should really belong to me and the other employees if I think we can spend it better."

 

If I want to take 50k of my own money and buy a huge pile of ice, dump it in a field and watch it melt that is my business. If I was your manager and you tried to tell me that money really should have belonged to you, I really doubt you'd want to know what I'd say to you after. But I'll give you a hint it would end with "yourself" followed by you looking for a new job. That said, in my 25 years of working while I have seen some pretty crazy shit I have never seen an employee stupid enough to say something like that to their manager or company owner before.

 

Its actually fairly difficult for the SEC to go after someone in Canada and they'd have to prove an offense occurred in both countries and the Canadian Justice System would have to support their request. I am also pretty sure Elon Musk and many others would be much higher on that hit list if they wanted to start down that road. That is all assuming SEC would even have an interest in this, which I seriously doubt they would.

[Heliian]

It's only a problem if someone files a complaint and that complaint has merit.  

 

[RoseLuck462]

Keep HODLing nerds!

[glockr]

On 1/29/2021 at 7:44 PM, Letgomyleghoe said:

so what? lmao?

Linus invests 10k and at the very worst loses 10k. I'm sure he's very aware of this possibility and going into this remembering that if he chooses so.  

insurance? if you can't even spell insurance I really don't think you should be giving stock advice. 

More like gambled $10K than "invested" $10K. Basically the stock market is a legalized casino. Sometimes the small "investors" win but the odds are all on the hedge funds. The only diffrence is that actual casinos have to follow rules, but the GME thing has shown that hedge funds get to change the rules if the little guys start winning too many dollars.

[Letgomyleghoe]

2 hours ago, glockr said:

More like gambled $10K than "invested" $10K. Basically the stock market is a legalized casino. Sometimes the small "investors" win but the odds are all on the hedge funds. The only diffrence is that actual casinos have to follow rules, but the GME thing has shown that hedge funds get to change the rules if the little guys start winning too many dollars.

The thing is there’s skill and education that goes into stocks, sure it’s super random and you can loose at any point, but it’s a little different than playing slots.

[LogicalDrm]

On 2/4/2021 at 8:57 PM, JCBiggs said:

They locked my thread.. but youre welcome to read my opinion below. Funny how a different point of view on the same subject gets shut down. Guess it was inconvenient.  

Locking of your thread was nothing to do with shutting down opinion, censorship etc. And even if it was, this is private owned platform so any "free speech" nonsense is irrelevant. Your thread was locked because it had bit too much of discussion to be straight on merged to this one. Just as I said in lock message. I've merged 2-3 other opinions to this thread already.

 

If you want to discuss this further, my PMs are open.

[LAwLz]

On 2/6/2021 at 4:37 PM, LogicalDrm said:

this is private owned platform so any "free speech" nonsense is irrelevant.

Off topic but I absolutely hate this argument. It's such a terrible one.

When people say "free speech" they typically don't refer to the letter of the law as written in the first amendment. They refer to it as the concept described in the universal declaration of human rights.

Quote

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

People who pull the "freedom of speech" card usually aren't saying "I have a constitutional right to say this" but rather they are trying to say "I do not want the platform I am on to assert their power to silence opposing views because I think it is dangerous".

 

Seriously, it really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. I am pretty sure Linus have on multiple occasions explained it on the WAN show as well when for example Nvidia cut ties with some reviewer over Ray tracing. Linus said it was a freedom of speech issue as well. Not in a legal sense, but in a "it is bad if reviewers can't say whatever they want without repercussions". Linus wasn't trying to argue "the reviewer is protected under the first amendment" when he made that argument, he was trying to say "someone in a possession of power is trying to use that power to silence opposing opinions and views for personal gains, and that's bad".

 

 

"It's a private company so therefore freedom of speech doesn't apply" is such a non-argument it is not even funny. It's like saying "you're not allowed to criticize X because even though it is abuse of power and horrible, it is technically legal and therefore totally okay to do!".

[Quackers101]

Well I do think free speech has an merit in some of social media discussion, but I agree that too often and sometimes in times were it's just to say this would create a bad public image. I guess all this would be a topic of itself. When social media is more than just being social, when it's a tool and information that can be criticality important or became a part of your life (youtube and working on that platform?), then again its a bit weird in how it should be balanced to politics that can be such a mess or harmful, also who to control it all... like the US having control of so many platforms... GEEZES CRIIISTTT!! The US have too MUCH POWWAA!! Just going to use Tencent's and chinas social media, what could go wrong?

[WkdPaul]

@LAwLz feel free to get Linus and Luke opinion on this ;

 

https://youtu.be/gg-qVqjUN_w?t=2160

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

23 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

@LAwLz feel free to get Linus and Luke opinion on this ;

 

https://youtu.be/gg-qVqjUN_w?t=2160

There is a newer WAN show where Linus specifically makes the distinction between free speech as written in the US constitution, and the general concept of free speech which people typically refer to when talking about free speech.

 

I should have saved the timestamp for that because I think Linus (for once) put it pretty well.

I think it was during the "Nvidia cuts ties with reviewer over statements about ray tracing".

 

In case I don't find it, freedom of speech is a concept far greater than the first amendment. People who say "free speech" do not always refer to the first amendment. It is often about how someone in power are using that power to suppress ideas or statements they do not agree with, and that's bad when that happens, even if the law in some country might be on their side.

For example the declaration of human rights do not limit the right to free speech to just mediums controlled by the government, but to all mediums. That does not mean that I can say whatever I want on this forum and point to that going "it's my legal right because it says so in the UDHR". It's not. 

 

My argument is that "the first amendment only applies to the government" is being used as a "get out of jail free card" by many to deflect criticism if a company abusing their position to silence things they do not like. I am not saying that this is what is happening here, just something I wanted to bring up because someone pulled that "get out of jail free card".

 

"It only applies to government" is a shitty argument. It is usually a strawman argument.

[Avus]

Linus may made good $$ if he still holding GME. Today close at $91. After hour trading at this moment passed $150!!

[TetraSky]

4 minutes ago, Avus said:

Linus may made good $$ if he still holding GME. Today close at $91. After hour trading at this moment passed $150!!

Pretty sure his average price is higher than that still.

[Jtalk4456]

On 1/29/2021 at 10:57 PM, Dtx1 said:

How about this one, though i must admit candian legalese is on the edge of my english reading ability https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-382.html

 

Limiting his promise to 50K afterwards might already be a violation of this.

with intent to create a false or misleading appearance of active public trading in a security
That's the difference between hedgefund managers and linus. hedgefund managers are flat out manipulating the stock with intent. Linus knew what he was getting into, didn't misrepresent anything, didn't promise everyone the company would live and thrive. He has every right to participate in the stock market with his own money and make his own decisions. he was completely transparent about what he was doing and that it could all be lost. He's not liable for anything except being willing to drop 50k for a meme to make viewers laugh.

[RoseLuck462]

Hope you fucks still have your  because #GME is back! Rocket is refueled, we going to the moon!

[Heliian]

52 minutes ago, RoseLuck462 said:

Hope you fucks still have your  because #GME is back! Rocket is refueled, we going to the moon!

With what?  Hope? 

[iLikeBananas]

Yep, GME is going up again.

[Loki0111]

7 hours ago, Heliian said:

With what?  Hope? 

While I have no idea where this is actually going I think he is referring to the skyrocketing GME stock price. The price suddenly climbed over 100% in one day.

[Lord Bloobus]

This aged poorly. I'm up several hundred today already as well.