a proponent of DRS, a proponent of GME, a proponent of the fediverse and freedom of communication.
- 10 Posts
- 25 Comments
While superstonk mods did so graciously permit this truthful post to exist in their subreddit that is a place that belongs to them and not the community that they lord over, they still couldn’t resist not posting their own opinion and pinning it to the top of the comments to reassert their opposing view once again.
The following is a critique of that pinned comment.
The mod team doesn’t have a narrative we’re pushing when it comes to the differences, if any, between plan and book shares.
The very first sentence gives it away. From the very beginning, from "I also want to be the Book King 👑 " and maybe before, superstonk mods have been pushing the narrative that there is no difference between plan and DRS.
What is really being said here is: “Our view is that there is no difference between plan and book shares, and this is the narrative that we are not pushing” said the mod that pinned his narrative-pushing comment to the top of the comments so that everyone has to see it and be exposed to information that attempts to contradict the truth of the distinction between plan and DRS.
All we can go by is the evidence. There are some in this community (and other GME communities) who have strong feelings on the matter. Some people cite generally ambiguous evidence from various sources (and of various levels of credibility) that believe that this evidence supports their deeply held position that book-held shares are in some way processed differently or outside of plan-held shares.
The mod is clearly attempting to discredit the Plan is not DRS post by saying that this information is based on strong feelings, ambiguous evidence, of various levels of credibility.
Further, this comment is deliberately misleading because nobody is talking about the distinction between the way that DRS shares and plan shares are processed.
This isn’t about processing of shares, it is about what is and what is not DRS.
We’re receptive to evidence that proves this theory. But, understand, it is a theory. All the evidence we’ve received directly from Computershare is that, when it comes to plan and book shares, it’s a difference without a functional distinction. We believe in free discussion and debate, but always consider the source. This is a good discussion post, and we’ve restored it after internal discussions. Some of the information in this post, for instance, comes from this site: https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts At the bottom of this site is the following disclaimer: This Bulletin represents the views of the staff of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This Bulletin, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person. Keep in mind that information can be interpreted more than one way. If you believe book shares are the way - book them. If you think there’s evidence suggesting that it doesn’t matter, or you’re not yet convinced one way or the other, then keep digging. For now, just keep the conversation civil, don’t gatekeep or bully people into your point of view or having to invest your particular way, and travel safely!
The mod is saying, to conclude, “Plan is not DRS” is merely a theory, so don’t give it too much credence. Also, we believe that Computershare said that it is a difference without a functional distinction, and this supports our narrative, the narrative that we are not actively pushing.
Also, this theory is even less credible than you thought it was because the SEC bulletin cannot be considered authoritative.
We have decided, after internal deliberations, that we would graciously allow this
posttheory to exist in our subreddit, because we are very generous and care deeply about your ability to discuss the truth. The important thing to remember is that plan and book are actually practically the same, the distinction isn’t worth your attention, and that this is a narrative that we have not been actively pushing for the last year.
2023-12-21
Another example of “Plan is not DRS” being removed from superstonk for rule 6.
Rule 6 states:
- Back Up Claims With Sources Our biggest strength is our ability to crowd-source information. For the Integrity of the sub, and in order to rule out Misinformation or FUD, please cite your sources when making claims. Making any Call-to-Action posts or comments without verifiable sources is not allowed. Speculation is allowed under the Speculation/Opinion flair.
Apparently, making the accurate distinction that plan is not DRS somehow violates that rule.
The simple fact is that superstonk mods have repeatedly demonstrated that they have an agenda, and that agenda includes censoring any discussion about the distinction of plan and book, and specifically the fact that Plan is not DRS.
5·7 months agoit’s area.
great comment!
i tend to agree. i think the fediverse is probably the best model moving forward. it is a challenging problem!
👍 🙏
me too! 💜
For sure.
with respect to bots, as of this time I don’t think it’s a problem that can be fully solved, although I do think over a long enough timeline the fediverse is probably the best suited to handle that problem.
I wanted to see a visualization of the relative size comparison, so I used the data that was available on Wikipedia, but this data is approximate at best.
This hit piece production video featured the following 4 paid actors:
Full transcript:
Kristina Partsinevelos:
What to bedtime stories, a bankrupt company, and memes all have in common?
Fellow Montrealer, chairman of GameStop: Ryan Cohen. Or, that’s at least the speculation on Reddit right now.
Bed Bath and Beyond filed for bankruptcy for April, was delisted in May, and now trades on the US’s main Over the Counter exchange. The shares tend to float around until the entire bankruptcy process is over, and its bonds are right now are practically free, highlighting the lack of value in Bed Bath and Beyond, especially after Overstock paid 21.5 million dollars for all of its IP, so that means that they don’t even own bedbathandbeyond.com is not part of Bed Bath and Beyond it’s Overstock now.
And yet, Bed Bath and Beyond shares have soared, what, over 300% since its delisting, which is pretty uncommon for a bankrupt business, and more uncommon, you have retail investors getting in and, even though they know they would be the last to be paid in any sale, so,
Enter the bedtime stories and meme angle.
The Reddit crowd has a theory involving Teddy Holdings, which filed trademark applications to be an online marketplace for everything from towels, picture frames, to children’s bedtime stories. It’s also registered as a bank in Delaware, the Reddit crowd noted that the address for Teddy Holdings is the same address for Teddy Publishing, which is the publisher of a series of children’s books written by: Ryan Cohen.
There’s that Cohen connection. He’s a prominent figure in the meme stock world, although he did cash out of Bed Bath and Beyond just last year, making what, over 50 million dollars, investors now though, the retail crowd, are hoping Teddy may step in to somehow find value in the bankrupt retailer.
I called and reached out, or tried to reach out to Teddy’s patent lawyer, but didn’t hear back in time for this, uh, hit. So what is this telling us?
Rumors, we know, can move names, no doubt. Meme traders are hoping to connect the dots that may or may not be there, suggesting that Teddy holdings and in turn Ryan Cohen, can help find value in a bankrupt company that is no longer really Bed Bath and Beyond.
Courtney Reagan: And obviously Bed Bath and Beyond saw these huge moves because of the meme crowd, they haven’t given up on this name, even after it’s filed for bankruptcy, even after Ryan Cohen cashed out, huh?
Kristina Partsinevelos: Precisely, and the corporate bonds are really not worth anything, so, and the value, so what’s the value right? because the IP was pretty important hence the reason why Overstock bought it, but, they believe that this company in this shell, whatever’s left of it, that hasn’t been given to Overstock, could be renamed, and be taken under Teddy’s wing.
That’s it – You’re shaking your head no.
David Faber: I mean – Well it just, it just shows you the lengths of wishful thinking that people are willing to go to to delude themselves, that anybody who wanted to get into this business needs the ‘husk’ of Bed Bath and Beyond to do it. I can, I can go back 30 years, there was a bankrupt [something] maker called LTV, and the stock traded around for years and years and years, and people shorted it naked, it was crazy, and it happens every cycle. But the fact that we had the encouragement in here of somebody who at one point saw value in a doomed retailer is… uh I mean I think we should just be clear, that, you know, these are people telling stories to themselves.
Kristina Partsinevelos: Or, this is a really confident market right now, right? You have these investors seeking out any type of profit, uh, we’re re-invigorating the meme trade again, so what does that say, when, you know, people are trying to find value in names that are pretty much dead?
Carl Quintanilla: Or were trying to find alternatives to the, what historically has been private equity coming to the rescue, right?
Courtney Reagan: Exactly, which has not always turned out very well for these retail names, of course, with the, all of the debt that they leverage, and when other crises happen, big problems sort of resurface later on.
David Faber: Fascinating.
Carl Quintanilla: It is Fascinating.
Kristina Partsinevelos: You guys are all smiling but –
Courtney Reagan: This in itself is a bedtime story, right?
Kristina Partsinevelos: Yea, let me get a glass of milk.
Courtney Reagan: “Once upon a time…”
Kristina Partsinevelos: Ryan Cohen came to the rescue, cape and all.
Courtney Reagan: He’s gonna save this damsel in distress. At least that’s the story they’re telling themselves.
Carl Quintanilla: Kristina thanks.
Kristina Partsinevelos: Thank you.
Courtney Reagan: Fascinating.
nice, thanks OP!
information like this is valuable. these types of things are evidence that contributes to the reality that there are ongoing efforts to attempt control the types of information that communities are consuming and have access to, and the types of behaviors associated with that.
Who benefits if investors are passive and not engaged, as opposed to motivated and active?
i was thinking the same thing. it’s kind of cool on Lemmy when you cross post and it says at the top “cross-posted to”, it provides an easy gateway between both separate communities to find each other :)
OP unfortunately the original pic you posted for this topic got corrupted at some point. Do you happen to still have the pic that you could re-upload?
OP it looks like the original picture you uploaded to this post got corrupted. do you happen to still have that image that you could reupload?
What was Pulte’s intention on making this video?
Some believe that it is deliberately tinfoil-related.
in the post in the pp show subreddit, the top comments there discuss that Pulte is brandishing an interesting stork logo on his sweater. A stork is delivering a package.
In a Twitter/X spaces call several days later, somebody asks Pulte where they can get a sweater like that, and Pulte revealed that this sweater was something that he had custom made.
So, Pulte custom makes a sweater with a peculiar logo and ensures that this logo was clearly visible in the video. For all we know, this could have been Pulte’s entire purpose for creating this video, to show viewers this logo as a way of dropping a clue, in the tinfoily sort of way that some investors tend to look for.
what gets me is that, discussing this kind of tinfoil used to be cool and fun and commonplace in superstonk. Much of what superstonk used to believe was based on nothing but pure speculation and belief in tinfoil clues. but at some point along the way, something has changed, and this kind of tinfoil is now considered unacceptable lunacy if it in any way connects to BBBY. Like, it was totally okay when GME investors dissected Ryan Cohen’s tweets and attempted to interpret the different possible meanings that RC might have been signalling. Pure, unadulterated grade AAA tinfoil used to be totally acceptable, and outsiders would often call superstonk and GME investors delusional cultists for possibly believing in this kind of speculation.
But, that same type of speculative tinfoil, when applied to the situation surrounding the Bed Bath and Beyond bankruptcy, is suddenly too far. The same kind of rhetoric used against GME investors (delusional, cultists, grifters, bagholders) for believing in speculative tinfoil is now being used among GME investors in places like superstonk against BBBYQ investors. And I just find this kind of ironic and also quite restrictive, probably deliberately restrictive.
It is almost as if the same forces that always opposed the GME investor community are trying very hard to make sure that nobody gives any attention to what is going on with the BBBY situation, and it is for this reason that I believe the post was removed from superstonk by the mods there. the funny thing is that, to me, the more they try and censor these kinds of conversations and drive a wall up between communities, the more it tells me that there is something important worth looking at.
for Karl!
51·9 months agocult member checking in.
It wasn’t my post, I’m just observing here that it was removed.
Whether or not it was a valid argument of getting a good price or not a good price, is besides the point in this case. The price is fake anyways.
The point of this post is: That superstonk post advocates for having shares in pure DRS book as opposed to DSPP, and the post gets removed.
Why was it removed?
Why can’t a person go on to superstonk and make a post saying that they agree that shares should be held in pure DRS book? The post had 1.6 thousand upvotes and over 200 comments. Clearly the community was in favor of having this discussion. The mods removed it.
Why did the mods remove it? Why not just let the community participants have the debate, and they can sort it out amongst themselves, rather than the mods unilaterally deciding that “we don’t want this content to be present in our subreddit that belongs to us”.Ultimately, as described above, this is part of a pattern of behavior of discussions of Plan versus Book.
100% this.
if those mods were ever genuinely concerned that their community was at risk of being eliminated, they would take mitigating actions such as starting their own Lemmy instance. The fact that they don’t, and that they are in stead actively antagonistic towards the very idea of Lemmy, speaks volumes.
Reddit as a whole continues to demonstrate corrupt acts of information control against the interest of Reddit’s users.
Imagine being a shareholder of any company but not allowed to have a voice in shareholder social media communities because the unaccountable moderators / admins of those communities decided that you don’t get a voice. how fucked up is that? this is the power that reddit has over shareholders of companies that have nothing to do with Reddit. it’s one of the reasons i have reluctantly found myself using X more. X too suffers from problems but not censorship the way reddit does.
i of course would ultimately love to see more users on Lemmy and other fediverse apps, but most people are not really interested in this right now. maybe as the enshittification of reddit gets unbearable, more people will consider Lemmy