That (and the related sibling's comments) is a fair argument, but admittedly not what thought when I first pictured the term "mobbing".
For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just.
However, mobbing, to me, is when the random internet gets out its pitchforks and finds something to dogpile on, even though they might not have been affected personally.
> For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just.
Given the claims that (various high percentages above 50%) of RH users had one of these meme stocks, that should still drive the rating to 1-star.
Especially if you also count everyone as "affected" who bought through another broker and who saw those shares plummet once RH destroyed retail "investor" (read: gambler) demand.
>even though they might not have been affected personally
It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. You're also making a large assumption that cases you would define as "mobbing" consist of a significant portion of people unaffected.
> It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior.
The thing about opinions nowadays is that they are manipulated right and left. It has become absolutely trivial to whip up a mob into a frenzy.
This isn't to say that any concerted movement against something one was not personally affected by is illegitimate. Clearly, one does not need to be a person of color to support BLM.
My question regarding the mobbing prevention was in the spirit of the first form.
