121–130 of 547 posts
EDIT: I was wrong, this was removed because it was a repost. However I wish the mods would say why it was removed. Justin Kan posted a tweet about this. I also tried to screenshot and post it to r/wallstreetbets but it got deleted by mods. The mods of r/wallstreetbets themselves are complicit in this. https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetbetsnew/comments/l75z6o/m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because many people on social media encourage other people to give the app 1-point rating. That's something Google need to protect against. The poor rating should happen organically. But regardless, they are fucked.
So because -company- does illegal thing and people respond by using whatever means they have Google should silence the masses of disaffected users just because some people changed their rating? That is some grade a: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
Gamestop is not supported on Robinhood. I get a message -- " This Stock is not supported on Robinhood"
This is a jabberwocky sentence. It is syntactically correct but there is nothing in the real world to which it could be referring. Brokers do not "support" stocks.
Gamestop is not supported on Robinhood. I get a message -- " This Stock is not supported on Robinhood"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they? They just need spam protection. If legitimate, independent users vote them down in thousands then why would an app need a protection?
What would be something positive about allowing mobbing?
Just as I was wondering how many retail investors might be involved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947674 From the number of Playstore votes it seems quite a few? Will be interesting to see if it stays that way. Or if they can somehow cheat their way out of it and get all recent ratings deleted or something. Any guesses?
Only approved messages are now allowed on the large platforms. I predict they will "correct" the error.
But the opinions of incensed humans aren't worth the rollback it takes to "correct" the problem.
The entirety of google is a money making machine intelligence serving it's few wealthy owners, and absolutely disrupting and destroying everything else.
We need to take the torch to our big tech overlords.
Can someone who knows more about such things than I explain to me why their weird response to the situation (halting buying, but still permitting selling) was deemed by them to be the best of their options (the other two obvious ones being to temporarily stop dealing in those securities entirely (halting buying and selling), or to continue letting people trade them as they had the previous day)? It's confusing to me.…
Preventing people from exiting an existing position is a much bigger deal than preventing them from entering a new one.
Serious question: Since RobinHood is a private company, does the "if you don't like it, you can build your own platform" argument apply here? Or does that only apply selectively when it benefits partisan politics? This is the natural evolution when censorship as we've recently seen is given a pass.
One of the good things I see coming out of Robinhood blocking trading, Twitter and Reddit booting problematic users, Parler getting vaporized, etc. is a sudden realization amongst people of just how easily major parts of their lives can be instantly turned off by intermediaries. My hope is that this will drive a reformist movement around digital rights (speech, commerce, etc.) As well as a movement from platforms to…