Some great posters left because of the new SEC rules on social media

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

I saw chanos, sadly having left one censored software... and then later I got it.

Some great posters have left, because they don't want to have problems with the SEC.

I think this is the issue that we are facing, beyond the sig spams...

The SEC has changed the rules when it comes to Social Media

Building a presence on social media sites like Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook can help financial advisors build a strong brand, attract new clients and enhance relationships with existing clients. But with stringent rules and regulations from FINRA and the SEC in place, many advisors have shied away from embracing social media to build their businesses.

Now, however, the SEC has loosened its stance on how financial advisors can leverage social media. The biggest change, of course, is that financial advisors may now promote client reviews that appear on third-party social media sites like Yelp. (They still cannot, however, solicit client reviews for their own social media pages; pay for positive reviews; or edit/hide negative reviews.)

And while the SEC still prohibits use of testimonials in advertising, advisors may now indicate (by providing links on their websites, for example) that there are testimonials available on third-party sites. According to an SEC statement, this allows advisors to “signal to clients and prospective clients that they can research public commentary about the investment advisor or IAR on an independent social media site.”

The new SEC rules also make it clear that advisors may comment on personal issues—including religious affiliation and involvement in charitable pursuits—via social media.

As Michael Kitces, director of research at Pinnacle Advisory Group, notes on his blog, “these rules do nothing to change the ongoing requirement that investment advisers must have a process to archive and monitor social media use, and avoid saying things that are otherwise inappropriate (on social media or any other medium!).”

part of obama strategy to SILENCE US ALL... what the fuck, speak under aliases, and use one per post, I don't give a fuck.

thanks to all that shared in the past.

[1715144944]

1715144944

[1715144944]

1715144944

[1715144944]

1715144944

[1715144944]

1715144944

[1715144944]

1715144944

[Mc_Moneysack]

I don’t quite get how this would have an impact on the forum. Could you please explain?
As far as I understand the SEC has loosened the rules. Moreover, the rules apply to financial advisors. How would that affect people who post here?

[topkhai]

I don’t quite get how this would have an impact on the forum. Could you please explain?
As far as I understand the SEC has loosened the rules. Moreover, the rules apply to financial advisors. How would that affect people who post here?

Not for forums, Maybe bounty hunters on social media campaigns

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

I don’t quite get how this would have an impact on the forum. Could you please explain?
As far as I understand the SEC has loosened the rules. Moreover, the rules apply to financial advisors. How would that affect people who post here?

because they have to declare their social medias accounts... and how to spread crap interlaced with genius in such conditions? Imagine that jamie diamond is bashing girls having invested in btc on some kind of social medias... and that he had to reveal it .

privacy is necessary for some creative writers

it's one thing to be humiliated by grammar nazi with a pseudo another one...

I hope it helps you to understand....

I don’t quite get how this would have an impact on the forum. Could you please explain?
As far as I understand the SEC has loosened the rules. Moreover, the rules apply to financial advisors. How would that affect people who post here?

Not for forums, Maybe bounty hunters on social media campaigns

from what I understood it's about everything online with public discussions...

[Quickseller]

I don't think there have ever been a lot of people who have been in this kind of role publicly around here.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yeah, I don't quite get how the SEC could drive "great posters" away from bitcointalk.  I agree that a lot of knowledgeable and eloquent members don't come here anymore, based on browsing threads from 2010-2011.  I suspect it's because there's very little true discussion going on where you'd most expect it to be--Bitcoin Discussion in particular.  

I've said this so many times, and I hate to say it again, but I think old-timers abandoned bitcointalk because the spamminess produced by signature campaigns precludes their input from being read and responded to.  Anything of value that gets posted in sections like Bitcoin Discussion is quickly buried by the shitposting contingent, and the SEC definitely is not responsible for that.

part of obama strategy to SILENCE US ALL... what the fuck, speak under aliases, and use one per post, I don't give a fuck.

Say what?

[bitmover]

I've said this so many times, and I hate to say it again, but I think old-timers abandoned bitcointalk because the spamminess produced by signature campaigns precludes their input from being read and responded to.  Anything of value that gets posted in sections like Bitcoin Discussion is quickly buried by the shitposting contingent, and the SEC definitely is not responsible for that.

I was thinking about why does Theymos allow these signature campaigns to continue, as they are responsible for all those spammers.

I think those signature campaigns may be bad to the forum, but good for bitcoin and crypto in general. Many people start owing crypto through this forum.