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

#381

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

bananabreakfast wrote: post #342

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My hope is that this will drive a reformist movement around digital rights (speech, commerce, etc.) As well as a movement from platforms to protocols. I don’t have much hope for this, mainly because being the owner of a platform is much more profitable than being one of many protocol end points. Look at git. It is hard to think of a more open protocol, and yet GitHub absolutely dominates and it is a big deal if the…

You are using the term "deplatform" completely wrong. None of the things you mention are platforms. Mail is not a platform. Roads are not a platform. Electricity, water and gas are not platforms. These are all examples of point to point connection. None of them allow you to reach millions of people unfederated. If you start sending out illegal hate mail to millions of people, you bet you'll be "deplatformed" by the U…

> If you start sending out illegal hate mail to millions of people, you bet you'll be "deplatformed" by the USPS.

If you start sending out legal harassment mail to millions of people, you'll get a discount.

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

#382

Post by valuearb » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

treeman79 wrote: post #293

thephyber wrote: post #239

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.

Let me know when churches start paying taxes...

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

#383

Post by dvt » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

heimatau wrote: post #241

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely support the notion of moving from platforms to protocols, at least in theory. I do think you're going to run into the need to regulate wherever communication starts impinging on not-purely-informational constructs, like securities. I really hope that gambling on GME is not a "major part" of a significant number of people's lives.

> I really hope that gambling on GME is not a "major part" of a significant number of people's lives. It's a major part of the mega wealthy's lives. They've profited in this pandemic and it's not because of the fundamentals. Shorts squeeze the market too much but they ( hedge funds) should be responsible adults and take their losses. Not force Robinhood to unethically force sell it's massive user base to liquidate b/…

> I suspect it's the latter.

It's absolutely the latter. GME is a meme stock that people will forget about in 3 months. If 2008 didn't cause anyone to go to jail (where millions lost their houses and retirements), manipulating a short squeeze on a failing company certainly won't.

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

#384

Post by SamBam » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

treeman79 wrote: post #169

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…

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.

So the government would force private corporations to let anyone say what they wanted on their sites? And this new sweeping government power would somehow.... restrict the government?

Do you not see how that's contradictory?

And what would it even look like? Would Hacker News no longer be allowed to have moderators?

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

#385

Post by freeone3000 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

QuesnayJr wrote: post #333

freeone3000 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RH could not just go elsewhere; moreover, they absolutely could not go elsewhere today . Handling order flow for automated transactions isn't something you can find on short notice.

I think they can go elsewhere. If Citadel can't beat national best offer, they are supposed to go with the national best offer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_best_bid_and_offer

They don't do this. See https://nypost.com/2020/12/17/sec-slaps-robinhood-app-with-6... .

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

#386

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #304

chaos986 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's part of the Sophie's Choice. If we have private owned social media, then they will moderate according to public opinion. If we have us government run social media then we have no moderation at all because 1st amendment applies only to us government. So is it morally allowable to discuss online? Should it be law to allow or disallow ? Who decides what the majority of people consider to be abhorrent?

I think you central questions it the most important one, but the dichotomy between private and public is forced. A phone company is not forced to moderate the communication of its clients.

I don't believe parent said they were forced, only that they would do it. And that makes sense, since their desire is to minimize damage to their brand.

There is a simple solution to this if you don't like the way they behave: stop using their product, and recommend others do the same.

Of course, your not using it doesn't prevent others from using it if they want to, but that's freedom of choice for you.

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

#387

Post by wmeredith » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

noitpmeder wrote: post #363

Miner49er wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Motherboard it's more than half. https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/1354798244455395328 EDIT: This is untrue, please refer to jaywalk's reply.

From what I understand Robinhood's actions today only impacted derivatives of GME, not trades involving the actual underlying equity (which, I imagine, is what most people actually own).

Nope. They stopped buying of the actual equity. All you could do was sell.

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

#388

Post by monkeywork » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #304

chaos986 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's part of the Sophie's Choice. If we have private owned social media, then they will moderate according to public opinion. If we have us government run social media then we have no moderation at all because 1st amendment applies only to us government. So is it morally allowable to discuss online? Should it be law to allow or disallow ? Who decides what the majority of people consider to be abhorrent?

I think you central questions it the most important one, but the dichotomy between private and public is forced. A phone company is not forced to moderate the communication of its clients.

true but the analogy falls apart when you realize that 99% of phone conversations are peer to peer and between 2-4 people.

social media posts can be a single person communicating with millions.

the damage per unit of effort is much much lower for the unmoderated phone vs the unmoderated social

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

#389

Post by vkou » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

ziziyO wrote: post #335

worker767424 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwing this out there, too: assorted government restrictions and lockdowns imposed by regional public health officials. The early ones were more justified because we knew less, but as the pandemic drug on, the burden of proof justifying closures needed to increase, and legislators needed to step up and legitimize the policies. It's like how the president can wage war for 90 days, but then has to get approval from c…

We needed to put more people at risk because we couldn’t prove that they would get sick?

It's worse then that.

We need to put more people at risk, because we can't meet some nebulous, ever-shifting standard that asks us to trade human lives for dollars of economic activity. Nobody wants to pin down exactly how many dollars they think a human life is worth, though.

On the one hand, we've got every special interest group under the sun loudly shouting that their business is special, and must be allowed to operate as if nothing has changed over the past year.

On the other hand, we've got public health - a communal good, that everyone is responsible for, but nobody gets held responsible for.

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

#390

Post by anthony_romeo » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

thisiscorrect wrote: post #252

daenz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding like an "I told you so" type of person, it is frustrating to speak out and see others speak out about future consequences of these kinds of actions, only to be drowned out by people liberally applying the slippery slope fallacy argument.

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.

IMO Slippery slope arguments can definitely be valid. Slippery slope fallacies are failed slippery slope arguments. To successfully argue for the slippery slope, one needs to actually argue that the slope exists and will lead to the ultimate consequence with meaningful certainty. The tactic is so common in sophistry: merely stating A -> B -> C -> D -> "nuclear holocaust" does not make it so.

Like... if an event has an 80% chance of occurring as a result of an action, it seems that the event is highly likely to occur. If this has an 80% chance causing of a different event, which has an 80% chance of a different event, leading to an 80% chance of a different event, the probability of the final event from a point in time before the first event occurred would be 41%.

Arguments are a construction of information intended to induce an understanding of probability among others, and skipping steps along the way weakens trust in that conclusion.