7 ms·

"I don't think there's a conspiracy" followed by hints of conspiracy. I think Robinhood didn't do anything wrong (or even incompetent), but they are screwed b

by sidibe 6y ago

"I don't think there's a conspiracy" followed by hints of conspiracy. I think Robinhood didn't do anything wrong (or even incompetent), but they are screwed because the prospect of losing money (actually just the potential of more money, they haven't lost any yet if they close now since the mania isn't done) is emotional and triggers outrage and a need for someone to blame.

gkoberger 6y ago
That's my point. I don't think there's a conspiracy, where the CEO of Wall Street called the Robinhood CEO and said "shut it down now" and they did. Rather, I think everyone acted in their own self-interest, and a lot of random retail investors found out that their best interests were the only ones that didn't align with everyone elses. A lack of a conspiracy doesn't mean the results were any different.
- np- 6y ago
  IMO, it's similar to something like institutional racism. There probably are very few people who are openly and unashamedly racist at the highest levels of power (although sadly not zero) - but all it takes is the current players acting in their own self interest to keep perpetuating an extremely unfair and totally rigged system. Basically what MLK described in his Birmingham jail letter. (and to be clear, I think both of us are on the same page) But I would say - their underlying intentions are absolutely and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters is that they acted in a way that boosted Wall Street at the expense of retail traders, and thus they are perpetuating a corrupt system, whether they feel like they are or not.
  - vmception 6y ago
    > all it takes is the current players acting in their own self interest to keep perpetuating an extremely unfair and totally rigged system I’ll entertain this topic Lets take a yellow cab driver in Manhattan not wanting to pick up a black passenger. If you ask them, they’ll assume its because the black passenger lives in Brooklyn or some other not-Manhattan place and that the driver wont get a good tip and wont be able to get fares at the destination, making it less economical. The cotton and tobacco trade was also economical. Economics is never a good reason to make an exception for discrimination. But an individual may not have specific feelings about race, while they perpetuate a system of discrimination regardless. It still requires empathy to be able to relate to all parties in an articulate way, to see what needs to change to provide service and access to everyone. (To the person I replied to, there is nowhere that I’m disagreeing with you, in case you’ve been conditioned to look for that)
    - hooande 6y ago
      You have to solve this problem at a higher level. Why are black passengers more likely to live in poor and far away places? Obviously it will take time to resolve that. Generations at the least. But we have to do something in the mean time, or we'll be perpetuating the negative effects of social bias. We should change the short term economics using taxes and regulation as much as possible, while clearly telling people why we're doing that.
      - vmception 6y ago
        Honestly, Lyft and Uber mostly solved that while being completely unrelated to that specific cause. It was a “UX problem” solved by a different program.
        lazyasciiart 6y ago
        Unfortunately, they don't appear to have solved it at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-lyft-and-the-false-promise-of-fair-rides/506000/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-ly... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/ride-hail-racism-isn-t-gone-it-s-just-delayed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/ride-hail...
        vmception 6y ago
        the older article is practically supplanted by the newer bloomberg article your bloomberg article starts off with nothing nearly as extreme as “at all”, specifically using “egalitarian in some ways” such as in the case of exactly the problem I detailed Introducing new problems and shifting where the bis occurs and for different populations than just people of color Thank you for the insight, good to know about. I have never thought about overlaying social causes in my profile picture at all let alone on ride hailing apps, but I can see many people doing that
        lazyasciiart 6y ago
  - valuearb 6y ago
    They acted in the only way that saved themselves and their customers from a painful bankruptcy. It did nothing to boost Wall Street at all. And has zip to do with “corruption”.
- ac29 6y ago
  > Rather, I think everyone acted in their own self-interest Read the article. Robinhood arguably acted against their own interest, since they get paid for order flow (and telling customers they cant execute trades they'd like to make wont be good for customer retention either). Robinhood acted in a way that was contractually required, according to formulas set up long in advance of any of the latest market action.
  - np- 6y ago
    Sometimes you’re caught between a rock and a hard place. That doesn’t absolve you of the direct consequences of the actions you take. Perhaps a better question to ask is how did they allow themselves to end up in this position where they have absolutely no choice but to make a poor decision in the first place? Were there no adults at the wheel leading up to this? Is this not a sign of an entirely broken system?
    - sidibe 6y ago
      You are starting with the assumption they've been forced to do something wrong, I think you have to explain what that is first
      - astrange 6y ago
        It’s about as wrong as grocery stores running out of a product to sell you.
      - np- 6y ago
        All indications are that they promoted themselves as "democratizing finance" and being "for the people" (quotes are the exact words used by Robinhood to describe themselves). But as you mentioned, they were still contractually beholden to larger powers, and when push came to shove, they acted entirely within their own self interest. They lied to our face to gain business. Not only that, but they continue to lie to the media (not making it clear that this was a liquidity issue). Sure, in retrospect, it's evident that it was heading this way all along, but just because a fraud is perpetuated out in the open doesn't make it any less of a fraud.
colllectorof 6y ago
>I think Robinhood didn't do anything wrong (or even incompetent) Sure they did. The CEO of Robinhood went onto CNBC and lied about why they restricted trading. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/robinhoods-ceo-denies-the-trading-platform-is-facing-liquidity-issues-amid-investor-frenzy/ar-BB1dbB35 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/robinhoods-ceo-den... Also, here is their history of other recent fuckups: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robinhood-sec-fine-65-million/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robinhood-sec-fine-65-million/ "Robinhood Financial fined $65 million by SEC for misleading users" Stop making excuses for liars.
- loceng 6y ago
  It's amazing to me there isn't a system that we can automatically pull from, of trusted channels, that will bring into view these more "hidden" narratives - that get crowded out by the current mainstream media and journalism trying to respond quickly without doing their homework or with doing more quick reads that keep to a narrow scope of a narrative instead of a longer read that requires attention, which in fact will quell the reader's excitement or over excitement - likely leading to less viral sharing due to losing readers who aren't patient enough to read more thorough content.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - twothamendment 6y ago
    "It's amazing to me there isn't a system that we can automatically pull from, of trusted channels..." I like it, but who gets to decide which sources are trusted?
    - loceng 6y ago
      Whatever network(s) or leadership within the system you subscribe to.
    - adventured 6y ago
      The people visiting the service decide that for themselves; they decide if they think the provider is trustworthy. You personally have to trust the person / people deciding which sources on a matter/story are trustworthy. It's a chain. That trust gets built up over a long period of time ideally, starting typically from a very modest beginning. It's worth noting that sources are often not consistent, they can be trusted on one thing and then get another thing wrong, so it certainly won't be a simple matter of dictating that This Source is good and That Source is bad (for everything). More challenging than earning that initial trust, is maintaining it, not allowing a perversion to occur over time (where the service becomes biased, irrational). For every service that gains initial trust, most inevitably lose it over time; keeping it long-term is far harder.
josephorjoe 6y ago
Maybe (maybe...) they did nothing against the 'rules' but that's not going to help them much when their angry customers transfer their accounts to other brokerages. In my book, "really pissing off your customers" is "doing something wrong" which is why if you absolutely must do something that will make your customers angry you absolutely must explain yourself as quickly and as transparently as possible.
pishpash 6y ago
They did something wrong, like giving everyone a margin account without asking, when they didn't have enough capital to do so. It is in their business model that this would happen. They were just quite cavalier about it!

by sidibe 6y ago

gkoberger 6y ago

That's my point. I don't think there's a conspiracy, where the CEO of Wall Street called the Robinhood CEO and said "shut it down now" and they did. Rather, I think everyone acted in their own self-interest, and a lot of random retail investors found out that their best interests were the only ones that didn't align with everyone elses. A lack of a conspiracy doesn't mean the results were any different.

np- 6y ago
IMO, it's similar to something like institutional racism. There probably are very few people who are openly and unashamedly racist at the highest levels of power (although sadly not zero) - but all it takes is the current players acting in their own self interest to keep perpetuating an extremely unfair and totally rigged system. Basically what MLK described in his Birmingham jail letter. (and to be clear, I think both of us are on the same page) But I would say - their underlying intentions are absolutely and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters is that they acted in a way that boosted Wall Street at the expense of retail traders, and thus they are perpetuating a corrupt system, whether they feel like they are or not.
- vmception 6y ago
  > all it takes is the current players acting in their own self interest to keep perpetuating an extremely unfair and totally rigged system I’ll entertain this topic Lets take a yellow cab driver in Manhattan not wanting to pick up a black passenger. If you ask them, they’ll assume its because the black passenger lives in Brooklyn or some other not-Manhattan place and that the driver wont get a good tip and wont be able to get fares at the destination, making it less economical. The cotton and tobacco trade was also economical. Economics is never a good reason to make an exception for discrimination. But an individual may not have specific feelings about race, while they perpetuate a system of discrimination regardless. It still requires empathy to be able to relate to all parties in an articulate way, to see what needs to change to provide service and access to everyone. (To the person I replied to, there is nowhere that I’m disagreeing with you, in case you’ve been conditioned to look for that)
  - hooande 6y ago
    You have to solve this problem at a higher level. Why are black passengers more likely to live in poor and far away places? Obviously it will take time to resolve that. Generations at the least. But we have to do something in the mean time, or we'll be perpetuating the negative effects of social bias. We should change the short term economics using taxes and regulation as much as possible, while clearly telling people why we're doing that.
    - vmception 6y ago
      Honestly, Lyft and Uber mostly solved that while being completely unrelated to that specific cause. It was a “UX problem” solved by a different program.
      - lazyasciiart 6y ago
        Unfortunately, they don't appear to have solved it at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-lyft-and-the-false-promise-of-fair-rides/506000/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-ly... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/ride-hail-racism-isn-t-gone-it-s-just-delayed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/ride-hail...
        vmception 6y ago
        the older article is practically supplanted by the newer bloomberg article your bloomberg article starts off with nothing nearly as extreme as “at all”, specifically using “egalitarian in some ways” such as in the case of exactly the problem I detailed Introducing new problems and shifting where the bis occurs and for different populations than just people of color Thank you for the insight, good to know about. I have never thought about overlaying social causes in my profile picture at all let alone on ride hailing apps, but I can see many people doing that
        lazyasciiart 6y ago
- valuearb 6y ago
  They acted in the only way that saved themselves and their customers from a painful bankruptcy. It did nothing to boost Wall Street at all. And has zip to do with “corruption”.
ac29 6y ago
> Rather, I think everyone acted in their own self-interest Read the article. Robinhood arguably acted against their own interest, since they get paid for order flow (and telling customers they cant execute trades they'd like to make wont be good for customer retention either). Robinhood acted in a way that was contractually required, according to formulas set up long in advance of any of the latest market action.
- np- 6y ago
  Sometimes you’re caught between a rock and a hard place. That doesn’t absolve you of the direct consequences of the actions you take. Perhaps a better question to ask is how did they allow themselves to end up in this position where they have absolutely no choice but to make a poor decision in the first place? Were there no adults at the wheel leading up to this? Is this not a sign of an entirely broken system?
  - sidibe 6y ago
    You are starting with the assumption they've been forced to do something wrong, I think you have to explain what that is first
    - astrange 6y ago
      It’s about as wrong as grocery stores running out of a product to sell you.
    - np- 6y ago
      All indications are that they promoted themselves as "democratizing finance" and being "for the people" (quotes are the exact words used by Robinhood to describe themselves). But as you mentioned, they were still contractually beholden to larger powers, and when push came to shove, they acted entirely within their own self interest. They lied to our face to gain business. Not only that, but they continue to lie to the media (not making it clear that this was a liquidity issue). Sure, in retrospect, it's evident that it was heading this way all along, but just because a fraud is perpetuated out in the open doesn't make it any less of a fraud.

colllectorof 6y ago

>I think Robinhood didn't do anything wrong (or even incompetent) Sure they did. The CEO of Robinhood went onto CNBC and lied about why they restricted trading. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/robinhoods-ceo-denies-the-trading-platform-is-facing-liquidity-issues-amid-investor-frenzy/ar-BB1dbB35 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/robinhoods-ceo-den... Also, here is their history of other recent fuckups: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robinhood-sec-fine-65-million/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robinhood-sec-fine-65-million/ "Robinhood Financial fined $65 million by SEC for misleading users" Stop making excuses for liars.

loceng 6y ago
It's amazing to me there isn't a system that we can automatically pull from, of trusted channels, that will bring into view these more "hidden" narratives - that get crowded out by the current mainstream media and journalism trying to respond quickly without doing their homework or with doing more quick reads that keep to a narrow scope of a narrative instead of a longer read that requires attention, which in fact will quell the reader's excitement or over excitement - likely leading to less viral sharing due to losing readers who aren't patient enough to read more thorough content.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- twothamendment 6y ago
  "It's amazing to me there isn't a system that we can automatically pull from, of trusted channels..." I like it, but who gets to decide which sources are trusted?
  - loceng 6y ago
    Whatever network(s) or leadership within the system you subscribe to.
  - adventured 6y ago
    The people visiting the service decide that for themselves; they decide if they think the provider is trustworthy. You personally have to trust the person / people deciding which sources on a matter/story are trustworthy. It's a chain. That trust gets built up over a long period of time ideally, starting typically from a very modest beginning. It's worth noting that sources are often not consistent, they can be trusted on one thing and then get another thing wrong, so it certainly won't be a simple matter of dictating that This Source is good and That Source is bad (for everything). More challenging than earning that initial trust, is maintaining it, not allowing a perversion to occur over time (where the service becomes biased, irrational). For every service that gains initial trust, most inevitably lose it over time; keeping it long-term is far harder.

josephorjoe 6y ago

Maybe (maybe...) they did nothing against the 'rules' but that's not going to help them much when their angry customers transfer their accounts to other brokerages. In my book, "really pissing off your customers" is "doing something wrong" which is why if you absolutely must do something that will make your customers angry you absolutely must explain yourself as quickly and as transparently as possible.

pishpash 6y ago

They did something wrong, like giving everyone a margin account without asking, when they didn't have enough capital to do so. It is in their business model that this would happen. They were just quite cavalier about it!