The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
So, you're glad he got fired because you are assuming he was doing these posts on company time against his bosses will?
Or you're glad he got fired because "it's internet-amplified mudslinging dangerous to the brand"?
Edit: god, I keep messing this up. He didn't get fired. He quit posting on seeking alpha because Elon called his boss and said 'im going to sue your employee unless you can think of some other way to get him to stop talking about my company'
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
So, you're glad he got fired because you are assuming he was doing these posts on company time against his bosses will?
Or you're glad he got fired because "it's internet-amplified mudslinging dangerous to the brand"?
Edit: god, I keep messing this up. He didn't get fired. He quit posting on seeking alpha because Elon called his boss and said 'im going to sue your employee unless you can think of some other way to get him to stop talking about my company'
Even if he had been fired, I wouldn't be glad.
But yeah I don't give the slightest shit that it fell out that way for him.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and if that information is used to harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and I'd that information is used up harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Companies are not guaranteed positive press. Is he saying anything actually defamatory? The fact that Musk used the strong-arm routine is strong evidence that no, he didn't. The bad thing is that his boss folded, instead of calling Musk's bluff.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and I'd that information is used up harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
This is a dangerous moral road to walk spool. There was no noticeable effect, but fuck'em destroy his life anyway?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and I'd that information is used up harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
Musk's behavior was unacceptable, period. If he's so concerned about bad press for Tesla, maybe he should be fixing the problems instead of engaging in unlawful (yes, really - the lawsuit he threatened was the Platonic representation of a SLAPP) behavior.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and I'd that information is used up harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and I'd that information is used up harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
This is a dangerous moral road to walk spool. There was no noticeable effect, but fuck'em destroy his life anyway?
It's true. I'm not sure where the line is or should be. People's lives don't need or deserve to be destroyed because they have a competing business or adverse stock position. I'm not sure if "you can be anonymous forever, no matter what you say or what impact it has" ought to be a thing either, though.
Spool, you keep calling Montana skeptic a troll. I have yet to see anything about him being a troll, other than the blog that doxxed him kept also repeating that he was a troll.
Maybe its hard now cause he deleted everything, but I can't find a single instance of him trolling, unless you think his seeking alpha articles are trolling
if your company is threatened by anonymous blog articles with the stated goal of negging the company because the author has a short position on its stock...
then your company was not very stable to begin with
I'm not sure this is true at all. Public perception can and does shift regardless of market fundamentals - that's the whole goal of the anonymous shit-stirring! It's not the little guy doing some clear eyed truth telling to the powerful, it's internet-amplified and dangerous mudslinging to damage the brand because a damaged brand is valuable to the mudslinger.
So, if someone owns telsa stocks are writes good thing about thwm, clearly that person should also be doxxed and fired for manipulating the market, right? That's where this is going?
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and I'd that information is used up harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
This is a dangerous moral road to walk spool. There was no noticeable effect, but fuck'em destroy his life anyway?
It's true. I'm not sure where the line is or should be. People's lives don't need or deserve to be destroyed because they have a competing business or adverse stock position. I'm not sure if "you can be anonymous forever, no matter what you say or what impact it has" ought to be a thing either, though.
I can't see the harm in anonymity for the majority of people online. If only because you can not control what a minority of dedicated crazy people will do with that information.
It's the old rather 9 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person suffer. I don't find the argument for doxxing compelling a majority of the time.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm not sure if "you can be anonymous forever, no matter what you say or what impact it has" ought to be a thing either, though.
What did Montana Skeptic do that as so out of line that he needed to be doxxed? Did he lie about Tesla? Did he hack Elons twitter and call a guy a pedo?
I'm not sure if "you can be anonymous forever, no matter what you say or what impact it has" ought to be a thing either, though.
What did Montana Skeptic do that as so out of line that he needed to be doxxed? Did he lie about Tesla? Did he hack Elons twitter and call a guy a pedo?
Again, if someone points out facts that harm a company's reputation, that is protected by law, and for good reason.
Musk's problem is that he started out in the hothouse of the tech press, which has a reputation for being lapdog, and thus wasn't prepared for the more adversarial nature of the investigative and financial press.
Calling him "the press" is an enormous stretch but I'm not going to contest it because I do believe that different levels of protection for "press" and others is utter bullshit. It's irrelevant whether he's a Member Of The Press or not.
Calling him "the press" is an enormous stretch but I'm not going to contest it because I do believe that different levels of protection for "press" and others is utter bullshit. It's irrelevant whether he's a Member Of The Press or not.
No, what's relevant is whether or not he said something defamatory, and again, Musk's actions are a strong indication that no, he didn't - because if he had, Musk wouldn't have called, but filed the lawsuit. Someone harming you by pointing out inconvenient truths is very much protected by law.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited July 2018
Holy shit, who is this guy? I need to find out his portfolio if with one anonymous twitter account he can jeopardize a car company's future. That dude must be worth fuckin' bank with that much influence.
Holy shit, who is this guy? I need to find out his portfolio if with one anonymous twitter account he can jeopardize a car company's future. That dude must be worth fuckin' bank with that much influence.
I think I saw it written that he had authored 136 articles about Tesla for Seeking Alpha in the past three years.
Which seems like a lot. Many too many.
Still doesn't seem wrong though.
+1
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I only read that one article by that guy that was linked here.
Unless I have missed 99.9% of what he does I feel we need to rein back the definition of a troll so that writing a pretty standard opinion piece against Tesla isn’t considered trolling.
PSN: Honkalot
+6
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
The name 'Seeking Alpha' should be all you need to know about that website and their audience.
Calling him "the press" is an enormous stretch but I'm not going to contest it because I do believe that different levels of protection for "press" and others is utter bullshit. It's irrelevant whether he's a Member Of The Press or not.
No, what's relevant is whether or not he said something defamatory, and again, Musk's actions are a strong indication that no, he didn't - because if he had, Musk wouldn't have called, but filed the lawsuit. Someone harming you by pointing out inconvenient truths is very much protected by law.
Goalposts just all over this motherfucking field right now.
Musk didn't call the cops on him. Nobody said shit talking on the internet was illegal. Whether Musk's actions are a Strong Indicator really depends on whether you want him to fail.
Montana was speculating, and then working to create the perception that his speculation was correct so that it would be more likely to pay him a nice pile of cash on the back of a failed company.
Calling him "the press" is an enormous stretch but I'm not going to contest it because I do believe that different levels of protection for "press" and others is utter bullshit. It's irrelevant whether he's a Member Of The Press or not.
No, what's relevant is whether or not he said something defamatory, and again, Musk's actions are a strong indication that no, he didn't - because if he had, Musk wouldn't have called, but filed the lawsuit. Someone harming you by pointing out inconvenient truths is very much protected by law.
Goalposts just all over this motherfucking field right now.
Musk didn't call the cops on him. Nobody said shit talking on the internet was illegal. Whether Musk's actions are a Strong Indicator really depends on whether you want him to fail.
Montana was speculating, and then working to create the perception that his speculation was correct so that it would be more likely to pay him a nice pile of cash on the back of a failed company.
True, he didn't call the cops. That's, like, the worst part of it! It's some Peter Thiel bullshit!
Elon called his boss and said, 'Hey, if you know what good for you, you'll stop your employee from using his free time to talk about my company'
Had nothing to do with:
His Boss
His Bosses company (a charity foundation, I think?)
His performance at his job
Calling him "the press" is an enormous stretch but I'm not going to contest it because I do believe that different levels of protection for "press" and others is utter bullshit. It's irrelevant whether he's a Member Of The Press or not.
No, what's relevant is whether or not he said something defamatory, and again, Musk's actions are a strong indication that no, he didn't - because if he had, Musk wouldn't have called, but filed the lawsuit. Someone harming you by pointing out inconvenient truths is very much protected by law.
Goalposts just all over this motherfucking field right now.
Musk didn't call the cops on him. Nobody said shit talking on the internet was illegal. Whether Musk's actions are a Strong Indicator really depends on whether you want him to fail.
Montana was speculating, and then working to create the perception that his speculation was correct so that it would be more likely to pay him a nice pile of cash on the back of a failed company.
True, he didn't call the cops. That's, like, the worst part of it! It's some Peter Thiel bullshit!
Elon called his boss and said, 'Hey, if you know what good for you, you'll stop your employee from using his free time to talk about my company'
Had nothing to do with:
His Boss
His Bosses company (a charity foundation, I think?)
His performance at his job
Oh, and what he threatened his boss with is actually illegal. It's called a SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Many states, including CA and I believe MT have anti-SLAPP statutes which allow for a countersuit to be filed that has to be resolved first - and if the case is found to be a SLAPP, not only is the original case dismissed, but the person is held liable for damages, and their legal counsel can be censured as well (because they have a legal obligation to not file SLAPPs.)
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
edited July 2018
Disregard, did not refresh
MalReynolds on
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Calling him "the press" is an enormous stretch but I'm not going to contest it because I do believe that different levels of protection for "press" and others is utter bullshit. It's irrelevant whether he's a Member Of The Press or not.
No, what's relevant is whether or not he said something defamatory, and again, Musk's actions are a strong indication that no, he didn't - because if he had, Musk wouldn't have called, but filed the lawsuit. Someone harming you by pointing out inconvenient truths is very much protected by law.
Goalposts just all over this motherfucking field right now.
Musk didn't call the cops on him. Nobody said shit talking on the internet was illegal. Whether Musk's actions are a Strong Indicator really depends on whether you want him to fail.
Montana was speculating, and then working to create the perception that his speculation was correct so that it would be more likely to pay him a nice pile of cash on the back of a failed company.
So what? Was he ever in a position to actually affect the future of Tesla?
If anyone here who has been critical of Tesla also has shorted stock of Tesla, would you consider us trolls as well?
Like, who cares if he was unfairly critical? What difference does it make?
By the standards of "has a nonzero financial stake in the future of oil" and "has posted topics critical of Tesla", it'd be justified if Musk called my boss to change my behavior.
Milski on
I ate an engineer
+9
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Yeah, like, I'm trying to figure out any reason to smear this dude other than Musk fanboyism and I'm drawing a complete blank. He was inconsequential and Musk took the time to call his boss and, uh, exert enough influence to get him to stop being critical of Tesla.
Like, are you guys for real? In what world is that anything close to okay?
+9
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Honestly, if the dude had done anything remotely serious, it would have been handled one of two ways:
The Cops.
Corporate Lawyers.
That Musk personally called this guys boss shows just how fucking far Musk is up his own ass.
+18
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Writing negative articles is something people can do, and he had a disclosure on his short. I see nothing unusual about what that guy did.
Generally we don’t silence people who write negative articles.
That’s not a normal occurrence.
PSN: Honkalot
+13
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Posts
This question is missing so much context it's not possible to answer. What you described, especially the "fired for manipulating the market" part, is not on the table at all.
Fired for getting your company uncomfortably noticed due to you running your side hustle out of their offices though? That's maybe worth firing you.
Because the internet horde broke the law, tracked your personal info, and then contacted your boss because your "side hustle" was disagreeing with their favorite billionaire.
So, you're glad he got fired because you are assuming he was doing these posts on company time against his bosses will?
Or you're glad he got fired because "it's internet-amplified mudslinging dangerous to the brand"?
Edit: god, I keep messing this up. He didn't get fired. He quit posting on seeking alpha because Elon called his boss and said 'im going to sue your employee unless you can think of some other way to get him to stop talking about my company'
Point of order: is it actually illegal to find out who an anonymous twitter person is and publish that information?
Also, the side hustle is clearly not disagreeing with someone - it's building an online media engine intended to damage a company for your personal profit. Talk about live by the sword / die by the sword.
Even if he had been fired, I wouldn't be glad.
But yeah I don't give the slightest shit that it fell out that way for him.
what do you want me to say? Sleep brought The Law into it.
the moral argument I guess rests more on whether you value the troll's wallet or Tesla's continued operation.
edit: and how you feel about anonymity on the net in general, but I jumped over to the Weaponized Social Media thread to talk about that angle.
Your argument would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if i ever heard of this "online media engine". I'm actively talking about it right now, and I've barely heard of it.
The side hustle is entirely just shorting a company and writing some articles to explain why.
To my understanding doxxing is of dubious legality depending upon how the information was obtained, and if that information is used to harass the target.
Calling the target's boss to threaten them sounds like harassment me.
As well even if laws haven't caught up: doxxing should be illegal
whether he was good at it or not isn't really the issue. You don't wait at the bottom of the hill to stop an avalanche.
Companies are not guaranteed positive press. Is he saying anything actually defamatory? The fact that Musk used the strong-arm routine is strong evidence that no, he didn't. The bad thing is that his boss folded, instead of calling Musk's bluff.
This is a dangerous moral road to walk spool. There was no noticeable effect, but fuck'em destroy his life anyway?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Musk's behavior was unacceptable, period. If he's so concerned about bad press for Tesla, maybe he should be fixing the problems instead of engaging in unlawful (yes, really - the lawsuit he threatened was the Platonic representation of a SLAPP) behavior.
Isn't that an argument against what Musk did?
It's true. I'm not sure where the line is or should be. People's lives don't need or deserve to be destroyed because they have a competing business or adverse stock position. I'm not sure if "you can be anonymous forever, no matter what you say or what impact it has" ought to be a thing either, though.
Maybe its hard now cause he deleted everything, but I can't find a single instance of him trolling, unless you think his seeking alpha articles are trolling
I can't see the harm in anonymity for the majority of people online. If only because you can not control what a minority of dedicated crazy people will do with that information.
It's the old rather 9 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person suffer. I don't find the argument for doxxing compelling a majority of the time.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What did Montana Skeptic do that as so out of line that he needed to be doxxed? Did he lie about Tesla? Did he hack Elons twitter and call a guy a pedo?
Again, if someone points out facts that harm a company's reputation, that is protected by law, and for good reason.
Musk's problem is that he started out in the hothouse of the tech press, which has a reputation for being lapdog, and thus wasn't prepared for the more adversarial nature of the investigative and financial press.
No, what's relevant is whether or not he said something defamatory, and again, Musk's actions are a strong indication that no, he didn't - because if he had, Musk wouldn't have called, but filed the lawsuit. Someone harming you by pointing out inconvenient truths is very much protected by law.
I think I saw it written that he had authored 136 articles about Tesla for Seeking Alpha in the past three years.
Which seems like a lot. Many too many.
Still doesn't seem wrong though.
Unless I have missed 99.9% of what he does I feel we need to rein back the definition of a troll so that writing a pretty standard opinion piece against Tesla isn’t considered trolling.
Goalposts just all over this motherfucking field right now.
Musk didn't call the cops on him. Nobody said shit talking on the internet was illegal. Whether Musk's actions are a Strong Indicator really depends on whether you want him to fail.
Montana was speculating, and then working to create the perception that his speculation was correct so that it would be more likely to pay him a nice pile of cash on the back of a failed company.
That it’s a bog standard finance website?
True, he didn't call the cops. That's, like, the worst part of it! It's some Peter Thiel bullshit!
Elon called his boss and said, 'Hey, if you know what good for you, you'll stop your employee from using his free time to talk about my company'
Had nothing to do with:
His Boss
His Bosses company (a charity foundation, I think?)
His performance at his job
Oh, and what he threatened his boss with is actually illegal. It's called a SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Many states, including CA and I believe MT have anti-SLAPP statutes which allow for a countersuit to be filed that has to be resolved first - and if the case is found to be a SLAPP, not only is the original case dismissed, but the person is held liable for damages, and their legal counsel can be censured as well (because they have a legal obligation to not file SLAPPs.)
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
That they care about the returns on their investments?
So what? Was he ever in a position to actually affect the future of Tesla?
If anyone here who has been critical of Tesla also has shorted stock of Tesla, would you consider us trolls as well?
Like, who cares if he was unfairly critical? What difference does it make?
Like, are you guys for real? In what world is that anything close to okay?
The Cops.
Corporate Lawyers.
That Musk personally called this guys boss shows just how fucking far Musk is up his own ass.
Generally we don’t silence people who write negative articles.
That’s not a normal occurrence.
Wait wait wait
He had disclosed his short when being critical of Tesla?
I thought he had hidden that, based on how everyone was reacting.
Okay, this dude did absolutely nothing wrong. People need to take a step back.
Two sentences at the end of all his posts.
Has shorted stock
Has long term short options on the stock