Replies to post #4446 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[SRV-90]

IF the mods of each board were actual paid employees of ihub then you would have a case.

The fact of the matter is that ihub is a "community" where people strive to help each other out. Each mod is simply a user of the site and is "asked" to uphold the rules of the site.

Many mods use the position to their advantage which can make the forum less amicable because of their agenda to run that particular board.

I've witnessed many mods being removed or sanctioned for these actions because the "community" spoke out against that type of action.

In the end the admins of ihub do have the final say and remember that they can not read every single post as there's at least 30,000 news posts a day! In order for them to know about it the "community" hits the TOS violation button.

The TOU is your friend. You can not talk about other posters in any way as the boards are about stocks and NOT about posters.

Understand that and ihub will be a very nice place to post.

[overachiever]

I think there is a vunerability iHub faces in Federal law. My first post here described it for comment and ideas.

You would be dead wrong about that. Ihub is not being used by the owners of the site to defraud investors. If it were part of a promotion scheme to willfully engage in lies and deceit in order to defraud investors out of their money, federal authorities might choose to use that law against the company. But since IHUB merely provides a message board forum which allows investors to engage in discussion, both pro and con, concerning stocks as long as posters follow the Terms of Service, the law you state doesn't apply at all to the site's owners.

[ratso1]

10b-5? Really?

Easy to say, difficult to prove.

What was the specific scheme?
Who committed the illegal trades?
What was the undisclosed material information that was acted upon?
What are the specific stock sales/purchases?
Who within Ihub had foreknowledge of this specific 10b-5 violation?

That's just for starters...

[BigBake1]

And yet even such a control will be questioned, do those people know people here? Is their a unified front of people that are purposely slanting the discussion? The same exact dialogue will occur because no matter how hard you try to make this perfect open dialogue people will always suspect and or allege conspiracy. You are still asking people to make a decision and as such there will be errors, and some will always feel they were well within reason (really a sense of entitlement) to state what they did and it obviously hit a nerve and or was so right that it had to be removed. You cannot remove the function of judgement and you cannot remove the emotion and bias of those posting.

Ihub is in fact the phone company carrying the message, he may allege whatever he likes but that does not mean he is right either. You may twist it to the definition as you like but as with any medium it is still just communication and as such will be treated in a manner no different than Facebook... Twitter and various other mediums that allow people to express their opinions openly. Facebook has such controls, there is no way you are going to convince the courts that your personal page should have content that violates their terms of use that you agreed to in the first place before opening an account.

I answered your first post here with why it is no such device, because you would essentially use the Internet as the standard for any of these forums. The Internet is not the device of fraud, the user however is,

[XenaLives]

Libel and slander - truth is a defense, but I don't believe that ignorance is. So if you say that someone is a crooked lawyer without knowing wether it is true or false you have slandered him if you can't show it is true or that you had good reason to believe it was true.