Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

play.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 547 posts

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

#471

Post by stormcode »

valuearb wrote: post #403
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Bill of Rights doesn’t enumerate rights for Americans, it enumerates them for everyone (outside of specific voting rights). And those rights are only to protect you from government actions because it’s the ultimate monopoly. The first amendment does not give you the right to enter someone else’s house to spread your political opinions, just as the second doesn’t give you the right to walk in to their home with yo…

Yes, to a point, the 'internet is free'. But you are sort of twisting the point a bit I think. Not only does it cost money to have a website in many cases, but to be close to 'free' in terms of what you can post the theoretical person you are referring to needs to run their own web server, and their own DNS server, and hopefully they don't expect to need a domain name...

Otherwise, it is not in fact free. Registrars can take your domain (look what is happening to eu domains owned by UK folx) and web hosts, are in part responsible for the content they host and can refuse to continue to do business with you.

Hell, even if you roll your own setup, the ISP you use can still choose not to do business with you, leaving your entire setup offline.

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

#472

Post by slg »

ashtonkem wrote: post #457
slg wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What distinction are you trying to make here? A completely open protocol with no single controlling entity would not be inherently beholden to government control or laws like a platform would be. It can result in the distribution of illegal content such as child porn. How is this not an example of potential anarchy?

Anarchists as a political group usually don't like it when anarchy is compared to chaos, as this is usually a comparison that was formed by their ideological opponents.

I still don't understand this point. I am not describing chaos. I am describing the specific drawbacks of a lack of centralized authority overseeing things. Isn't that the dictionary definition of anarchy. What am I missing?

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

#473

Post by defen »

silexia wrote: post #464
defen wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, picture a retail investor with a Robinhood account had sold call options in the amount of $100,000 and their account was worth $200,000. If the price gapped from 300 to 5000 and those options were exercised, that trader could have a loss of $10,000,000. He would lose the value of his account, $200,000… but the brokerage would have to make up the rest of the settlement and take a loss of $9,800,000. Now…

Exactly. So the risk department told them to shut down trading till things were saner.

Brokerages do not have a fiduciary duty to prevent customers from losing their money in bad trades. It's one thing to shut down margin trading or even possibly options purchases, but to not allow people to buy a stock with their own money is pretty bad. There is zero risk to the brokerage there.

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

#475

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

zarkov99 wrote: post #462
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am all for the free market, but when companies grow too dominant it no longer works, and we should not pretend otherwise. Just look at what happened to Parler.

These companies hardly have a monopoly on internet communication, case in point: Parler is still around!

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

#476

Post by s__s »

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.

That’s because it’s not automatically a fallacy. That’s a huge misconception.

> Logic and critical thinking textbooks typically discuss slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacy but usually acknowledge that "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences."

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

#477

Post by chemmail »

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…

That assumes people can see past Friday, not happening.

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

#478

Post by balls187 »

asenna wrote: post #455
balls187 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just ran through a thought experiment--if Google (gmail) Apple (my phone) and Tmobile (the current owners of my number) all simultaneously nuked me, could I recover? Luckily yes. Online access would be hindered, but nearly all my financial resources are handled through a local credit union.

Even better - having savings in a crypto hardware wallet :)

That seems like that would potentially stave off government locking off access, which is where I am most vulnerable.

I'm not in fear of the government seizing my assets, but I don't trust Google not to lock me out due to an algorithm run amok, or Tmobile giving my number away due to simple social engineering (that actually happened).

Apple I trust.

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

#479

Post by kenjackson »

monkeywork wrote: post #404
chrisco255 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voter fraud happened. There's video evidence of it occurring in State Farm Arena in Fulton County, GA. There's forensic evidence of 70% failure rates on voting machines in Antirim County, Michigan. There's 1000+ witness affidavits signed and presented under the penalty of perjury in various legislatures around the country. There's also statistical fraud detection algorithms that have numerous red flags with regards t…

link to sources please - like the source video, the source evidence on the failure rates, etc. also explain why no court, no intelligence agency (local or international), and the vast majority of the US Senate (consisting of both major political parties) disagrees with your assessment. Also if the presidential votes are invalid than I guess we need to assume all the other items on the ballet (house, senate, bills, et…

Its amazing how all the power structure in the US was on the right (the Presidency, Senate, Supreme Court, Federal Courts, Appellate Courts), but somehow the left was able to perform one of the most coordinated acts of voter fraud in history. And not only that, performed the same fraud in the polls leading up to the election too.

If the left is this good at such a grand conspiracy, then they really should run the country.

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

#480

Post by ttt0 »

krapp wrote: post #442
ttt0 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope is a valid political tactic for those outside the Overton window.

It's effective, because markets (including the marketplace of ideas) are irrational and bad faith tactics are often more effective at influencing people (at least in the short term) than reason and verifiable fact. I wouldn't consider it valid, though.

"Valid", as in, "it works".
Post reply on HN