4 ms·
(1) is pretty weak too. Yes, they had outages where 100% of stocks were unavailable for trading, which is factually true. What makes that assertion weaker is t
by filoleg 6y ago
(1) is pretty weak too.
Yes, they had outages where 100% of stocks were unavailable for trading, which is factually true. What makes that assertion weaker is the fact that other brokerages had the same kind of outages too, and not with less frequency of occurrence either. Which is why (1) is not really a meaningful point against RH specifically.
- pessimizer 6y agoThat other fruits are rotten does not weaken the assertion that this particular fruit is rotten. I don't think anyone is claiming that every fault that Robinhood has is unique.
- Dylan16807 6y agoBut it does weaken the argument of "why isn't everyone bringing this up more?" If they have a normal amount of outages, then the outages aren't brought up because that's boring.
- mike00632 6y agoThey don't have a normal amount of outages. They have more outages. It's a significant amount of outages. It's already been the subject of complaints previously.
- filoleg 6y ago>That other fruits are rotten does not weaken the assertion that this particular fruit is rotten Services occasionally experiencing unexpected outages doesn't make them a rotten fruit. By that metric, literally every single complex online service in existence is rotten. Given how rare those outages are, and how they are all not happening at the same time across different brokerages, I wager to say it is normal with nothing nefarious going on. Unless you expect a complex online service to have zero downtime ever, which is just unrealistic.
- mike00632 6y agoYeah... And other stock trading platforms also stopped users from trading GSE. So by your own bad logic the original complaint against Ribbonhood should be no big deal, right?