Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#131

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

beervirus wrote: post #66

ransom1538 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citadel is a hedge fund that owns Melvin Capital Management. Melvin is a $GME short seller predicted to lose BILLIONS due to the people taking the free market back. Citadel owns the app Robinhood. Citadel banned purchases of new $GME shares on RH. Market manipulation. https://twitter.com/shane_riordan/status/1354786445668610049 ^ quoted from here Ooops their correction here: https://twitter.com/shane_riordan/status/1…

Citadel doesn't own Robinhood.

Yeah, I keep seeing this claim posted that Citadel owns Robinhood, but I can't find any evidence to back it up. The Wikipedia pages for each don't mention the other.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#132

Post by karlmcguire » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #130

alangibson wrote: post #80

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…

Anti-trust law is a far cleaner way to approach that, with far fewer unintended consequences.

Yea, because that's been working great thus far.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#133

Post by happytoexplain » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

ckastner wrote: post #119

ketzo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe an app committed a sudden, devastating action against all of its users. That would be worth warning potential downloaders about, no?

That (and the related sibling's comments) is a fair argument, but admittedly not what thought when I first pictured the term "mobbing". For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just. However, mobbing , to me, is when the random internet gets out its pitchforks and finds something to dogpile on, even though they might not have been affected personally.

>even though they might not have been affected personally

It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. You're also making a large assumption that cases you would define as "mobbing" consist of a significant portion of people unaffected.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#134

Post by tw600040 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #130

alangibson wrote: post #80

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…

Anti-trust law is a far cleaner way to approach that, with far fewer unintended consequences.

"movement from platforms to protocols" is essentially anti-trust laws codified

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#135

Post by lordnacho » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #101

freeone3000 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's referring to margin specifically, not a held position. There's a difference between margin trading and holding the stock in your name.

The loophole here is that all new Robinhood accounts are margin accounts by default. You have to go through a process to switch from a margin account to a cash account and I suspect 95% of Robinhood's customers have no idea what the difference is or why they'd ever want to do that. So Robinhood technically is allowed to do this as per the letter of the law, and now the question is whether Robinhood is violating any f…

But how many of the accounts have larger positions in GME than equity? It doesn't make sense to margin call or liquidate someone who is good for the whole amount. Also if someone has some leverage it's not reasonable to liquidate them completely.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#136

Post by ckastner » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #109

ckastner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be something positive about allowing mobbing?

I consider review bombing a legitimate form of boycott. "BOYCOTT, the refusal and incitement to refusal to have commercial or social dealings with any one on whom it is wished to bring pressure."

That is an interesting argument. My gut disagrees but purely rationally, I can't find any fault with it. This is something I will be pondering.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#137

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #27

sneak wrote: post #7

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.…

Citadel is a hedge fund that owns Melvin Capital Management. Melvin is a $GME short seller predicted to lose BILLIONS due to the people taking the free market back. Citadel owns the app Robinhood. Citadel banned purchases of new $GME shares on RH. Market manipulation. https://twitter.com/shane_riordan/status/1354786445668610049 ^ quoted from here Ooops their correction here: https://twitter.com/shane_riordan/status/1…

You should probably include the correction Shane made later:

https://twitter.com/shane_riordan/status/1354787975058616320

"Citadel isn’t a majority owner of RH, but they DO pay RH a hefty figure to the app for consumer data. On top of the money paid to bail out Melvin.

All they have to do is threaten to pull that money for data from RH and RH pulls new share purchases of $GME.

It’s wild."

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#138

Post by elliekelly » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #58

brador wrote: post #30

Could we see a class action? Is there a case?

The class action has already been filed against Robinhood. It remains to be seen if it gets any traction.

It won't. Everyone who has an account at RH has contractually agreed not to bring or participate in a class action suit and has contractually agreed to arbitration.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#139

Post by marcinzm » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

jb775 wrote: post #50

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.

Robinhood can do whatever it wants and people can in response give it a 1 star rating. They can also complain about it not being a good platform to use. Freedom goes both ways.

You can also complain about Twitter or give its app a low rating or just stop using it.

Re: Robinhood now has a 1-Star rating on the Google Play Store

#140

Post by vharuck » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

Pasorrijer wrote: post #34

outoftheabyss wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why not communicate that in a diplomatic way. Their business and user base is at stake

When your marketing model is built entirely on sticking it to the man, how do you communicate that the man has you by the balls and you have no recourse because your business model is built on the man paying you off.

You do this clearly, because if you don't give people a good explanation, they'll find one elsewhere. And the person giving that explanation probably doesn't care about preserving your reputation.