Promoters gain by stock price increases and selling at higher prices.
True.
Negative posters and bashers profit by shorting and covering at lower prices.
False.
Negative posters are typically unable to short the stock about which they're posting.
Their motivation can be and often is altruism and a certain amount of anger at seeing inexperienced "investors" getting fleeced. Many being former fleecees themselves.
This misconception of "negative posters are bashers, and bashers are in it for the money and should be stopped" is very problematic.
Do you have any interest! You seem to hate promoters. Yet you insist on negative views. That seems to be an interest in the company!
When talking about stocks, "interest", "financial stake", and "position" are generally regarded as being synonymous. Is that what you mean?
And when you say "you insist on negative views", that's pretty misleading because it's missing a word right before "negative". If that word were "having" ("insist on having negative views"), that's quite different from "allowing only" ("insist on allowing only negative views").
The former is not a problem and I don't see why it should be considered a problem. The latter is a big problem. Or, in my opinion, should be considered one.
The matter of whether or not messages should be removed from a site by people who don't want the other side of the story discussed is a major issue. It's a recipe for abusive manipulation of available information and has already been used that way.
And putting "editorial" power beyond the scope of a site's stated rules (or even a chairman's own stated rules) into the hands of participants with a financial stake in the nature of the conversations may very well change the site from "Carrier" (and therefore protected by CDA) to "Publisher" when that power inevitably gets abused, as it already has.
I'm not a lawyer (though I was wanting the input of one) but I do have a pretty good idea of how sites protect themselves from being named in shareholder lawsuits.
AI
