I (and WSO) Need Your Help

Dear WSO Members,

I was contacted earlier this week by a reporter from Buzzfeed to get my perspective on several (very) disturbing posts that were in the forums and interpreted as being "allowed or permitted" by WSO (which is not the case).  

The truth is much simpler.  There are over 1,000 posts,...every day...8-10k/week, 30k+ per month.  My full-time team is small and we allocate a high percentage of our operating budget to moderating already, so it's not as easy for us to simply hire more moderators... especially with the volume of arguments and flag violations hitting the moderation table every day. 

Making it more difficult is identifying the often nuanced and subtle violations while also trying to allow for free speech and differing opinions to coexist.

We block thousands of users and remove tens of thousands of posts each year BUT there are still disturbing comments and threads slipping through the cracks.    

So how do we get better?

What about extending moderation roles to members with a rationale approach, respect for differing opinions and balanced views?  Maybe if we had an additional 2-3 dedicated moderators that are frequent WSO users to review the potential violations table at set times, we could get violations removed faster and less violations would slip through.  We've had volunteer moderators in the past and it didn't go well, but I am open to trying again and keeping it to a smaller but more dedicated group.

If you're open to helping us, please reply here in this thread or email me and I'll reach out to you to set up a call.

How can all members help?  If you are a registered member, you can flag any post using the red icon at the bottom of any comment/post.

My hope is that WSO can improve and keeps pushing against the global trends to be a place where we foster an environment of respect...and that WSO continues to be where students and professionals from around the world, regardless of their background, can develop superior career skills and access the same opportunities as those with the most privilege.  

Thank you,

Patrick



Below is the email from Tom at Buzzfeed, which outlines the framework of the article that is going to be published...   

Hi Patrick,

Thanks so much for reaching out with these and taking the time to chat yesterday. 

I wanted to make sure that I sent over some more details about the posts that we would be covering so that you would have a chance to comment on them. 

One is the South African riots post that I mentioned. The post won a forum sticker for being the most controversial within the thread, and was left online, despite being complained about. One of the respondents to the thread CC’d Wall Street Oasis’ chief operating officer, Andy Louis and said: “The fact that you let shit like this exist on literally every thread with no disciplinary action is gross. Hire some more fucking moderators and ban the racist shitposters. You guys have been looking the other way for far too long while claiming to be working on improving the environment here.”

Louis did not respond to the comments. The thread itself was left online and the user who made the racist comments, who claims to work in commercial real estate, continues to use the forum.

Additionally we will report on a post which contained both anti-semetic and racist material discussing tech billionaires, and a further post where a user named "shitonminoritieschad" posted about what he would wear when "undercover amongst "troublesome" communities, scouting potential raiding targets for my local Klan chapter". 


We will include comments from people who have complained about WSO and their belief that the amount of prejudicial material on the forum has grown. This includes one saying that the site had gone “full Stormfront,” referring to the notoritous white supremacist forum. The next day another user launched a post complaining about the Alt-Right views on the site. “I’ve been browsing this site for the last four years, but recently (3-6 months) there have been posts on this website that make me do a double take.” Questioning whether the owners of the site allow it, the user said that “even when you report these posts, half the time they are not taken down”

Weeks later another thread started complaining about “not Republican, but borderline White Supremacist views”. Another user agreed. “I'm a self-described far-right conservative who utterly detests political correctness and woke ideology (which I believe is an evil secular religion) and even I was troubled by the racism of the South Africa thread.”

We will also report an interview with a former user of the site describing their experiences seeing prejudicial material on the forum. 


Additionally, I wanted to check some of the forum rules, as posted online. The rules says that the site forbids political discussion unless it relates to finance. I wanted to check that was still the case and ask how it is enforced? 


Additionally the site has a page with rules for moderators, that they must work a minimum two hours, two days a week. Are there any voluntary moderators, in addition to the two full time staff that you mentioned? 


Hope well and all best, 


Tom

--

Tom Warren

Investigative Reporter

BuzzFeed UK 

 
Most Helpful

There are seriously only like 2-3 guys posting that mega racist stuff, and it’s so obvious when they start up a new account.

Just give me admin privileges to shut down those super obvious racist / troll accounts as soon as I see them, and have your full time staff review my decision after the fact.

If you have 5-10 certified users with the privilege I described above, you can stamp these guys out.

As a side-note, Tom from buzzfeed sounds incredibly sad / broke. Based on UK IB salaries, Tom is most definitely poor as hell. Sucks to be Tom from buzzfeed.

Array
 

To add. If you had some more verification like LinkedIn but with the twist that it all stays private, it would help a lot. A way of verifying your professional identity with WSO but your public profile has a verified but private view to regular participants of the site.

Really the problem seems alts accounts from trolls

 

This should come as no surprise as the moderation on this site is extremely lackluster. I have read many things on this forum from verified users that honestly make me ashamed to be a contributor to the site. I've seen posts stay up that clearly break site rules and have had to email the site admins and moderators directly before to get them rectified. 

Patrick, you basically have to decide whether this website is intended to be a professional career resource or a free speech zone. 

Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes.
 

Disappointing you think a professional career resource can't co-exist with free speech.  To me the problem isn't free speech, its people who don't believe in it.  From where I sit, the site seems to work well as both a career resource and a place for people to blow off steam about something besides breaking into the industry.  You seem to be saying choose one or the other, because Tom from Buzzfeed sent an email.

 

Agree this is the way to go - giving folks actual moderator powers / ability to ban is different than something like a "heightened trust score".

1. Select few certified users per the OP comment, folks that can apply temporary bans / purges to comments, all of which are prioritized for review by your team.

2. Perhaps another 10-15 frequenters (happy to be one) that are given "second priority" in the que from #1 above. These people wouldn't be able to action any mutes / purges but they'd see their own "flag" button that would allow you to review these quickly

3. By default, comments and posts that get multiple flags from users should be prioritized (and likely already is), but a system that heavily weights flags from certified users / users with more bananas (or perhaps most earned bananas in last X months) might help wade through the tens of thousands of comments / reports.

I'm a fan of verification / longer vintages on this site earnings you into privilege's like the above, however I must voice my opposition to banning anon posts / comments. Honestly, the internet is a scary / crazy place and I'm sure a person with enough malintent and time could find out who I was from my post and comment history. That concern is only heightened as there are most touchpoints. I bet there are plenty of folks trying to breach WSO's security if there is any way to discern the identities of users on here. Suppressing voices and forcing verification will contribute to a shit customer experience, high barrier to entry, and increase risk of blackmail. I honestly think it would kill WSO.

I'm glad everyone agrees this guy sounds like a complete fucking turd that didn't do more than 10 minutes of "investigation". This site has done wonders for me and I hate that it is under attack because of a very loud minority.

 
JSmithRE2010

There are seriously only like 2-3 guys posting that mega racist stuff, and it's so obvious when they start up a new account.

Just give me admin privileges to shut down those super obvious racist / troll accounts as soon as I see them, and have your full time staff review my decision after the fact.

If you have 5-10 certified users with the privilege I described above, you can stamp these guys out.

As a side-note, Tom from buzzfeed sounds incredibly sad / broke. Based on UK IB salaries, Tom is most definitely poor as hell. Sucks to be Tom from buzzfeed.

 

Patrick, I’ve read your forum for several years now and have actively posted over the past year. The only true racism I see comes from that Vaennen guy who actually seems like he’s not a troll. That “shitminoritieschad” is 100% without a doubt a troll who makes several new accounts and says the same nonsense about “waspy broads” and “Anglo saxon” stuff.

Anyone who frequently visits these forums will know those trolls stating racist nonsense are not indicative of the actual users of the site. Sometimes when I search by new, I’ll see tens of posts like that from trolls. It’s a handful of trolls who do this shit and try to paint WSO on a bad image.

I’m a minority from a family of immigrants and have found WSO to give invaluable advice. I landed a 6 figure job in finance in part due to the advice I read on this forum. I make more than pretty much anyone else I know in the same age group, and that’s partially bevauce if you. Anyone who tries to get this place shut down or paint WSO in a bad light about “misogynistic racists” lives a sad life.

Sounds like this reporter is trying to do a hit piece. If he took the time to go through the posts, he’d see the majority are college kids asking stupid ranking questions. Then he’d see the smaller in quantity but amazing quality posts from professionals about actual life in a finance role, whether it be banking, corporate finance, or even accounting.

There are liberals such as USCDThrowaway and Ozymandia who I fundamentally disagree with on almost everything, and they seem to call everything they don’t like racist, but they have a right to post. Same with more conservative users like myself and PrivateTechuityGME. WSO is a great place, and yes, it’s become more politicized over the years, but what hasn’t?

The fact a Buzzfeed reporter who works for a company that hasn’t published a legitimate journalistic piece since it’s inception is trying to tear down a bastion of free speech in the finance community is a sign of those with no skill coming after something successful.

Not to put words in your mouth Patrick, but I think you would agree with some of what I’ve written. Some you might say you don’t feel the same way about, and that’s ok. We don’t have to agree with everything other people say. Disagreeing and continuing on with our day is called maturity, something many people lack nowadays.

I remember googling Wall Street as a little kid and this site popped up. No idea what anything was, but I remember thinking it was cool because I liked Egyptians and pyramids, and “oasis” is commonly associated with the desert. Forgot this place existed until high school and rediscovered it while reading about “finance” because I watched Wolf of Wall Street.

Anyways, I want to say thank you for creating this place. I’m able to provide for my family in a way I didn’t think would be possible until I was much older in part due to info I read on this site. Also, to the buzzfeed reporter, do true due diligence before coming at a website and using a clearly troll user as an example of racism.

 
Arroz con Pollo

Patrick, I've read your forum for several years now and have actively posted over the past year. The only true racism I see comes from that Vaennen guy who actually seems like he's not a troll. That "shitminoritieschad" is 100% without a doubt a troll who makes several new accounts and says the same nonsense about "waspy broads" and "Anglo saxon" stuff.

Anyone who frequently visits these forums will know those trolls stating racist nonsense are not indicative of the actual users of the site. Sometimes when I search by new, I'll see tens of posts like that from trolls. It's a handful of trolls who do this shit and try to paint WSO on a bad image.

I'm a minority from a family of immigrants and have found WSO to give invaluable advice. I landed a 6 figure job in finance in part due to the advice I read on this forum. I make more than pretty much anyone else I know in the same age group, and that's partially bevauce if you. Anyone who tries to get this place shut down or paint WSO in a bad light about "misogynistic racists" lives a sad life.

Sounds like this reporter is trying to do a hit piece. If he took the time to go through the posts, he'd see the majority are college kids asking stupid ranking questions. Then he'd see the smaller in quantity but amazing quality posts from professionals about actual life in a finance role, whether it be banking, corporate finance, or even accounting.

There are liberals such as USCDThrowaway and Ozymandia who I fundamentally disagree with on almost everything, and they seem to call everything they don't like racist, but they have a right to post. Same with more conservative users like myself and PrivateTechuityGME. WSO is a great place, and yes, it's become more politicized over the years, but what hasn't?

The fact a Buzzfeed reporter who works for a company that hasn't published a legitimate journalistic piece since it's inception is trying to tear down a bastion of free speech in the finance community is a sign of those with no skill coming after something successful.

Not to put words in your mouth Patrick, but I think you would agree with some of what I've written. Some you might say you don't feel the same way about, and that's ok. We don't have to agree with everything other people say. Disagreeing and continuing on with our day is called maturity, something many people lack nowadays.

I remember googling Wall Street as a little kid and this site popped up. No idea what anything was, but I remember thinking it was cool because I liked Egyptians and pyramids, and "oasis" is commonly associated with the desert. Forgot this place existed until high school and rediscovered it while reading about "finance" because I watched Wolf of Wall Street.

Anyways, I want to say thank you for creating this place. I'm able to provide for my family in a way I didn't think would be possible until I was much older in part due to info I read on this site. Also, to the buzzfeed reporter, do true due diligence before coming at a website and using a clearly troll user as an example of racism.

Bruh.. I’m a registered Republican and literally voted mitt Romney for president while you were probably in grade school. Stop with the nonsense 

 
Arroz con Poll

There are liberals such as USCDThrowaway and Ozymandia who I fundamentally disagree with on almost everything, and they seem to call everything they don't like racist, but they have a right to post. Same with more conservative users like myself an

I don't use the term racist, so you must be confusing me for someone else.

And there are a lot of fucking bigots on this site.  I happen to agree that most of them seem to be the same few people making multiple burner accounts, but that doesn't mean half the topics in the Off Topic Forum aren't something along the lines of "would you let your daughter date a minority?".

 

First and foremost, happy to help out in any way if you need additional bodies to help monitor for objectively racist / sexist content. I am obviously biased, but I believe I have a fairly impartial perspective given that I typically try to avoid the most controversial topics (e.g., political posts). I am fairly active on this site as it is my go to for down time during the work day so I usually log on 1+ times per day. 

With respect to the article from Buzzfeed, I hope Tom is viewing this thread and reads my comment firsthand. I broke my response out in sections below: 

Analyzing the Data

Tom's point is that WSO either condones or ignores objectively racist and sexist content, but what it insinuates is far worse. It implies that racist and sexist finance professionals flock to WSO to attack and ridicule others. What a ridiculous comment to make, talk about an inability to analyze data correctly.

At this point WSO is essentially a mini-Reddit, in the sense that WSO observes a massive wave of new content being generated every day. Like Reddit, no company has the staff to monitor and regulate all posts AND OF COURSE COMMENTS, so the notion that WSO condones content they haven't viewed is ridiculous. Also, this site has 850k+ users throughout his history, and I am willing to wager that all racist / sexist comments have been made by less than 0.1% of the user base. Lastly, look at pure number of comments (3+ million). In the event that less than 0.01% of comments are racist, are we supposed to conclude that this platform is a breeding ground for racist groups? Tom, have you ever heard of 4chan? I would recommend you explore some of the more controversial parts of the internet and look at what sort of conversations take place there.  

The Intent of Buzzfeed's Piece

When you think about writing a piece like this, you have to acknowledge up front you are aiming to attack a FREE RESOURCE, with a purpose and mission statement of helping individuals gain access to information that allows them to break into highly competitive industries. Further, the platform focuses on informing others, and the majority of the posts are educational in nature. Where else can you directly ask questions and have them answered by professionals with 10+ YOE without paying for it or knowing them personally?

So, just to be clear about the intent of YOUR article, you seek to sabotage a resource, free of charge to all users, with a mission statement of helping people break into a competitive industry in order to generate click bait-esque content on your D-grade "news" outlet? You are doing so in the name of uncovering racism and sexism, but you aren't providing any "solves". Good thing you're not a consultant, because anyone can stand there and point out flaws for a platform as large as WSO. Stating that they should simply "hire more moderators" isn't simple when you have a FREE website that operates on lean margins.

It speaks to the character of BuzzFeed that they would try and go after an entire platform due to a few bad apples. This seems like another low-hanging fruit approach to vilifying the finance industry.

Buzzfeed's Understanding of WSO as a Resource and Platform

Tom, if you were aware of WSO activity at all, you would notice the community has called this exact predicament (a minority number of racists / misogynistic users) multiple times and the community and the staff are actively working toward solves. When you have a platform with as much new content per day as WSO, there will always be an inability for staff to read and regulate all the new content as it comes out. If your interpretation is that WSO is a racist platform, you clearly haven't made the effort to read through the top posts, look at the thousands of examples of people working together to support one another, or seen the impact of the top 100 users, which has been solely to educate and inform. Did you even bother to take a devils advocate approach, and try to connect with some of the user base that sees WSO in a positive light, and ask them what they got out of it? Probably not, because what news source ever thinks about things objectively anymore? That would deconstruct your thesis, which is a predetermined mentality that WSO is for evil, racist, sexist finance professionals. What a ludicrous perspective. 

 

Can we ban the poster that goes by Vaennen?  The dude has been on the site for a year posting nothing but anti-Semitism.  I have reported several of his worst posts and nothing has happened.

antisemitism on wso

Here's an example.  Either he's making bots to give himself silver bananas or he has some friends who agree with him.  The fact that he's been saying stuff like this for months and months suggests WSO needs to moderate more.

 

I do not know what your tech capabilities are but you should probably restrict new accounts from posting in the off topic forum.  You can either set an account age minimum restriction or a minimum/banana/post minimum to be able to post in the off topic forum.  A racist, or anti-semitic troll is not going to want to work very hard to get his point across.  

 

WSO is a fantastic informational hub, with a variety of seasoned and talented players. I can't tell you how many great posts I've read on here. I've learned a lot about other sectors within my own industry that I can't even find in my own office - being able to see things from a different perspective is ideal. There are a lot of really good people on here, demonstrated by those who are passionate about the industry they fall in and are more than happy to share that with the world. 

Then, there's the shit. Everyone knows what I'm referencing - the racism, sexism, everything done behind the facade of a screen. I get it - it's the internet, and speech is free. But there's a fine line between free speech and being comparative, argumentative, and downright insulting just for the fun of it. On one hand, I don't think about those people at all - I am sure they're fairly miserable IRL, and get some small sense of joy out of starting shit on an internet forum because God knows they would never dare open their mouths in real life. But, I've given them my thirty seconds, and won't continue to shit on anonymous internetgoers. 

This is a prime example of how a few bad apples can ruin the reputation of an otherwise fantastic website. As Arroz mentioned, Buzzfeed is a tabloid dressed in a cheap suit and will do anything for clicks. It still doesn't reflect an accurate statement of how the good outweighs the bad on here, and I appreciate you bringing it to our concern. With that being said, I'd be happy to step in for a moderation position - similar to DT6, I'm always on this website at work when I'm killing time. At this current moment, I'm in my office waiting for interns to do intern shit. It's a nice place to waste time, with it being ever-so-slightly more productive than watching YouTube. 

I'm online probably 1-2hrs per day and feel as if I'm pretty fair. I've never really gotten involved in a political argument, and have tried to ensure that I'm without bias and fair when engaging in debates. I'd also like to highlight some individuals who I think would be excellent at a content regulation job - some of those that come to mind immediately are Deal Team Six, Pierogi Equities, and [Malta] as I have seen nothing but logical content and sound reasoning from them in every capacity. 

Best of luck to you in your attempt to continue to improve the website. Glad I randomly clicked on this website a couple of years ago - has been a nice little online community!

 

Appreciate the love. This community is really cool overall and there's lots of great people here who have influenced my life in positive ways. Some great information on here and the only online community I like being a part of. Hoping that the trolling stuff can get squashed, even using a phone number to register or something that is harder to spoof (I know, not impossible. But more of a PITA to spoof)

“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.” - Nassim Taleb
 

This is an exceptionally generous compliment, Stonks1990. I, like many here, owe a lot to the site, not only for professional development advice, but general life advice as well. I especially love seeing new accounts with great comments, growing the userbase which leads to more positive discussion in the future, and is better for WSO overall. I know the Off-Topic forum is generally meant for things not directly related to finance, but it pains me seeing some of the posts/comments, and I can imagine that it can be very embarrassing for the WSO organization seeing some of the content that clearly crosses the line. That being said, and I have no data to base this on, but I think the majority of people on the Off-Topic forum are here to discuss things normally without issue, and that instead it seems like it's a select few individuals who generally are immature and violate people's respect online. I'm personally no expert in online speech, but I'd be more than happy to help WSO in whatever capacity.

I'm also no expert in building websites, but I know a lot of people here (myself included) sometimes view that places like Reddit are going a bit overboard with the mod involvement. It's hard to make sure views aren't taken down for political/drama purposes, which is I completely agree with BigKahunaBanker🏄🍹🍔's point about the SB/MS system that I think works well in this marketplace of ideas. People like Tom from UK Buzzfeed may not understand that.

Many bring up a point about not verifying users. To be honest, I agree with that because it serves most of us very well when we are just looking to talk about things anonymously. It's the same reason many people don't say anything in a company town hall meeting. I'm not saying everyone is subversive, but it's important to respect people's privacy.

Quant (ˈkwänt) n: An expert, someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
 

Pat, is there anything those of us with very limited free time can do to help other than being mods? Happy to help in any way I can but wife will leave me if I take more of her time away.

We really do need to rethink limiting anon posting. I see the value, I am more comfortable posting gossip/rumours/intel anon and I'm sure a lot of people are but the feature is heavily abused to spew all the stupid shit Buzzfeed points out. I don't have an answer or a solution. This is an Internet wide problem, not specific to this community anyway.

Tom Warren, if you're reading this, it just sounds like you are writing an article based on hearsay, and interviews with users. Why don't you spend some time in the community and do the actual investigative part of your title. Work for a living like the rest of us.

 

rabbit

Pat, is there anything those of us with very limited free time can do to help other than being mods? Happy to help in any way I can but wife will leave me if I take more of her time away.

I think the answer is having a system set up where you flag a post as being against the Terms and Conditions of the site and maybe 5 flags auto removes the post.

If the writer of the original post thinks that they are not in violation of the T&C, they should be able to appeal to have the original post restored.

One important thing that this should do is take posts down that violate the T&C so that they don’t show up on Google searches and the quality of the site is not compromised.

Also, there could be IP bans for repeat offenders.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
 

The IP bans sound interesting.  Could kill a few bad apples pretty quickly.

Also like your user-flagging idea provided that it's used only as you said: to flag something for WSO review and then WSO applies the T&C.  As opposed to a system where flagging replaces the T&C as the criteria for removing.  That would become more of a shitshow.

 
iercurenc

Glad we are all on the same page about bashing Tom. 99% of the racists posts are just trolls trying to ruffle feathers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that. 

My money is on Tom being the anonymous troll.

 

 99% of the racists posts are just trolls trying to ruffle feathers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that. 

And? Why should trolls who just spout off racist content belong here? Every site has an image it is trying to create. When I first joined WSO was a community of bright professionals and propsective college students who in the off-topic space would comment and engage in political/macro discussions in ways that I simply had not seen (and still haven't seen) on other forums. Quite frankly when you have some users engaging in good discussion and then one guy comes along and posts "Haha Jews suck bro!" or "The Buffalo shooter was a hero!" it is inappropriate, distracting, and seriously detracts from the ongoing discussion and quality of that thread. 

The trolls have no interest in finance, and simply want to abuse the free speech priveleges of this website without adding any thoughts or value to discussions and if anything stirring up nonsense that shouldn't even exist. 

I see no justification for such people remaining. 

Array
 

It's pretty clear what the intentions of this piece are.

Given the amount of uproar surrounding junior banker salaries (WSJ and BuzzFeed both wrote articles), as well as various other articles, finance is back in the spotlight. And what better way to capitalize on that then to write a slam-piece highlighting "racism" on the world's premier finance forum.

In reality, there are a few users who are trying their best to ruin the WSO experience for everyone. This site has provided me, and many others with a wealth of knowledge and valuable resources.

 

Couldn't disagree more with the comments suggesting users be verified.  Unless of course the goal is to kill WSO.  

Reacting in any major way to Tom from Buzzfeed would be a huge mistake.  Current moderation policies are fine, and it's fine to step it up a bit as suggested in Patrick's post.  But that would be more than enough.  Tom is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and the right answer is to let Tom embarrass himself.  Answer his silly questions and let him write his story, which will be a flop. 

Edit: LOL at the MS.  People are dumb.  Requiring verification will destroy the site.  But go ahead, have a knee-jerk reaction.  That always goes well.

 

Totally agree. While I throw a lot of MS and report articles. I'm intrigued about what my colleagues think about topics that can't be addressed in the workplace. While I know this doesn't represent everyone it's a good reminder that these are the people in the cubicle across the hall or that corner office. This is not WSO specific though.

Also, even without verification I still think people hold back on posting industry related advice, news, or relevant information.

 

Hi Patrick, I highly value this website strongly, both as a place of expression and one of relaxation. Be honest, the "___ is paradise" posts are funny as fuck. Also, speaking of fuck, there's no curse filter here - just like in real life. In many ways, the discourse here has prepped me, an introvert by nature, for the often brusque locker-room-type talk I now enjoy every day.

This is precisely why I am strongly against any form of ID enforcement on here. Do you think the various HR teams at BBs/EBs do not browse this forum, trying to sniff out their wayward employees? If the right to speak about our employers openly and anonymously is threatened, this website will lose its main purpose of existence, and with this, it's arrividerci for WSO

Even more, this website is a locus of control, a managed forum of expression that stands in great contrast to the R$ddits of the world, where you are tip-toeing around eagle-eyed jannies enforcing strict on-topic discussions and the NO FUN rule. Like it or not, we are in this job because we carry at least some A type traits in us, and this has to be expressed somewhere - in a healthy manner of course. And here the free market of MS and SB assist the "fair pricing" of opinions, while light moderation (that could be sharper on bots, I admit) gently hedges the discussions. Lord knows I posted some bullshit one here more than once, and I was promptly sentenced by the crowd to many red pop-ups in my browser. But every time I engage with the many great people here I am feeling relieved of my opinion, and that is good, since people need to load off stuff somewhere. And unfortunately these days there are things you cannot load off on your colleagues, no much guy talk you have between you. There are firms where voicing a controversial opinion (such as your dislike of abortion) will get you a visit from HR, so it is completely right to give these fellow financiers the chance to "let it all out". In that sense, the word "Oasis" fits greatly, since, say, exchanging opinions on faith with Isaiah_53_5 💎🙌💎🙌💎 can often feel greatly relieving, like drinking water after a long journey through the desert. That is why I have come to this website, and why I use it every day.

And that, Patrick, is why I ask you to not let yourself be browbeat by some 105IQ soy boy hacking together a hit piece to get his shrimp weenie off. This website is too good for us all to get ruined by those folks.

...and the Truth shall set you free
 

I think its actually worse. It is like calling yourself a car salesman when your primary strategy is exploiting old women whose husbands just passed and offering them 50% what their vehicle is worth (assume they had high end vehicles).

Chefs at McDonalds at least provide a basic service and meet expectations. There is a demand for McDonalds. McDonalds manages to feed millions of lower / middle class citizens around the globe, every day. Nothing wrong with being one of their "chefs". 

However, there should not be any demand for Buzzfeed, as they provide no service of value. They are an abomination of a news source and do not inform the public of anything meaningful. They create utter trash such as "Which Disney Princess are you Most Like Based on your Zodiac Sign?"