RE:StockhouseAgreed 1000%, Rainyday.
I apologize for my own disruptive behavior to those affected here (other than the remaining troll.)
It's unfortunate that Stockhouse doesn't act to better their boards.
After they banned passwordstock1p, I was sure his other alias timeoutofmind would be banned shortly thereafter, but no such luck, so I've had to persevere in highlighting his lies and injurious actions. He is quite a piece of work.
That Stockhouse administrators have never addressed their problems with trolls, pump and dump schemes and short and distort scammers is telling. The law is not on their side to say the least and CEO.ca got it right.
A casual observer might not be wrong to conclude that this shows Stockhouse not only tolerates, supports and encourages this behaviour (by not banning it), but that
they might actually be in on it. Recall this 2016 post, which to my knowledge, clearly shows that nothing has changed in 6 years.
Stockhouse Those greasy lawyers love to post those lawsuit press releases on Stockhouse. Makes one wonder if they pay Stockhouse to do so.
And even when you win in court, it's too late, damage is done. The government probably needs to address this since Stockhouse obviously won't.
CTVNews "Stockhouse.com said it was unable to give the real identities of the posters to the plaintiffs. However it did provide email addresses, allowing the plaintiffs to serve the lawsuit." Stockhouse had to be compelled by the court to provide this limited information.
https://theralase.com/theralase-wins-precedent-setting-lawsuit-against-anonymous-individuals-for-posting-defamatory-comments-online/ https://www.investmentexecutive.com/newspaper_/news-newspaper/anonymous-comments-prove-costly/ Here's a commentary about that case:
https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2020CanLIIDocs3836#!fragment/zoupio-_Toc3Page1/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zgGYAFMAc0ICMASgA0ybKUIQAiokK4AntADkykREJhcCWfKWr1m7SADKeUgCElAJQCiAGVsA1AIIA5AMK2RpMACNoUnYhISA In his decision, Myers J. underlined the court’s zero tolerance towards anonymous posters of defamatory content and reproduced the powerful words of Goldstein J. in Manson: [20] There are few things more cowardly and insidious than an anonymous blogger who posts spiteful and defamatory comments about a reputable member of the public and then hides behind the electronic curtain provided by the Internet. The Defendant confuses freedom of speech with freedom of defamation. There are, undoubtedly, legitimate anonymous Internet posts: persons critical of autocratic or repressive regimes, for example, or legitimate whistleblowers. The Defendant is not one of those people. The law will afford his posts all the protection that they deserve, which is to say none.