361–370 of 547 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood how a slippery slope argument is a fallacy, let alone a logical fallacy (like false syllogism or no true scotsman). The idea is essentially looking at current trends and extrapolating into the future. No prediction is necessarily correct, but it's not necessarily wrong either.
"Slippery Slope" can be and is used to object to absolutely any action at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my perspective, you just flipped the purpose of 1A. Right now you have the right to associate or disassociate with whomever you like (protected classes aside). In your altered future, the government forces churches to allow atheists and rival religions to be allowed to speak at the church, despite the desires of the owners and congregation. It would effectively be compelled association.
Nonsense. Trouble is when government gives out monopolies, or supporting monopolies they like. Government currently closed side. Government has chosen atheism as its religion. Very hostile toward other religions. Everyone pays for government school, but want to a Christian education, then you have to pay twice.
I wonder what percentage of Robinhood users hold GME - if it's more than 25% I'd say they're finished. If we assume 25% of users hold GME and 80% of GME holders will not return after this fiasco that's extremely significant IMO. Not to say that they'll cease to exist, but I doubt they'll remain the "#1 trading platform."
According to Motherboard it's more than half. https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/1354798244455395328 EDIT: This is untrue, please refer to jaywalk's reply.
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 sided halting in a moment like this reeks of market manipulation, which is illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe make Protecting free speech part our governments highest law. Maybe we could amend the law. Seriously. Lots of people love to dump on the constitution as old and not relevant. But it’s meant to restrict government and protect people’s freedom.
I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic, but to your last point; I think it is overlooked (intentionally or not) that the Constitution is already a set of laws and the highest laws at that. The "Bill of Rights" is not what people have been misled to believe, a list of rights you have and are given by government. In fact, they are the bill of laws that restrain the government from infringing on the natural God…
Its a backdoor way around the constitutional restrictions. AKA the government can't restrict free speech or search your house everyday, but its going to allow everyone else to restrict and search your house for the same effect. Given the close ties between the leaders & .001%, the result is the same. It won't matter to you when you get charged with a crime you didn't commit whether the government was tracking your phone or the phone company reports your phone to the government. The result is the same.
The reason why this happened is that their clearing house stopped fulfilling their orders (totally out of their control,) but Robinhood bungled this so badly, I honestly wonder if they'll ever recover. WeBull had to do the same thing but they have a clear reason rather than "protecting investors" etc.
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.
Is that in it's terms of service?
I'm surprised the app stores (well, at least the play store) don't have hysteresis built in to prevent mobbing the ratings, just in general.
This is not mobbing the ratings. They did something bad, and they are getting bad reviews for it. The review system is working as intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no law whatsoever that says a brokerage has to trade all stocks.
That's just it though, Robin hood didn't delist gamestop. They just decided arbitrarily that their users are only allowed to sell it. Coincidentally, this is a move that highly benefits a major partner of theirs.
There are several glaring problems with the theory that Citadel is pushing for Robinhood to ban buying GME for financial motives:
1. Robinhood has NO relationship with Citadel LLC
2. Everybody knows about the theoretical conflict of interest between Citadel/Citadel Securities so it is incredibly unlikely that Citadel Securities would risk doing anything to help Citadel in such a high profile scenario (i.e. the SEC/FINRA would be able to find out this kind of thing very quickly and very easily)
3. Citadel has no financial motive to stop trading of GME, because Melvin Capital has no financial motive to stop trading of GME
4. If it was as simple as trying to profit off of GME going down, why would they bother halting trades on other securities (AMC, BB, NOK, BBBY, etc.)?
This article does a really good job at explaining the situation (much better than I can do) [6]
[1] https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20SEC%2...
[2] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170203/NEWS01/1702...
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chinesewall.asp
[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-...
[5] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gamestop-melvin-idUSKBN29...
[6] https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
I feel like this action from Robin Hood saved a lot of retail trader from self harm. A lot of people are clinging to the hope that whatever came out of shorts covering their position being false. Whereas given the volume of the previous days it's highly likely they've already gone. Whoever goes in at this point is likely going to end up losing everything.
If you look at r/wallstreetbets, only a few people seem to have invested more than a couple of tens of thousands. The guy who came up with this idea to profit off of short squeeze seems to have invested only 53k. Most other people invested a few hundred or a few thousand. Also, people on r/wallstreetbets routinely show screenshots of their losses. It's kind of preposterous to move forward assuming these people don't know what they're doing, and Robinhood saved them...
These trading platforms are blatantly intervening to save the hedge funds, not the Reddit traders. Government may have a say in it, too, because they want market stability. And if these hedge have to sell their long positions to cover shorts, it could put a big dent in the market and even cause a larger scale crash.