Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

HN has lost its mind. Everything is suddenly a conspiracy against the noble individual investor. Story after story voted up to the front page with minimal relevance.

I mean, just think: were there really 100k legitimate Robinhood accounts that were blocked from an HME buy to justify a bad review? No. This is spam. It's just spam. People are angry, and this is a tool. And it's treated by Google exactly the way any other review spam would be. There's no conspiracy here.




> were there really 100k legitimate Robinhood accounts that were blocked from an HME buy to justify a bad review?

According to Motherboard, the majority of RH accounts hold GME.

There's also over 5 million subscribers to /r/wallstreetbets as we speak (most of them from this week). What percentage of those do you think would be "eligible" (according to your own criteria) to leave a legitimate review?


> According to Motherboard, the majority of RH accounts hold GME.

They retracted that later.

"Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that 56 percent of Robinhood users hold GME stock. This is incorrect, based on a misreading of a statistic on Robinhood. Motherboard regrets the error."

See the bottom of:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7ak7y/robinhood-stops-users...

They haven't provided an updated value. However, it's not hard to believe a significant chunk of Robin Hood users owned some GME today.


Thank you! Would correct if I could still edit.


>I mean, just think: were there really 100k legitimate Robinhood accounts that were blocked from an HME buy to justify a bad review?

With out a doubt. Robinhood has 13 million users according to their own filing with the SEC. WallStreetBets has 5 million subscribers. An overlap of 100k between those two groups sure seems likely to me.


You don’t need a GME position to think less of Robinhood after today


If 100,000 people are each leaving one review about their experience, presumably related to Robinhood's change earlier today to limit certain actions, how does that qualify as spam? Is it because it happened within a short timeframe? I'm sincerely interested in what qualifies as spam in this case given that these are organic, possibly non-automated reviews that map 1-to-1 to a specific user who has installed (and presumably used) the app.


How is that spam? I find the information that the app developer suddenly crippled the service promised during installation to be very useful.


A honest review is not spam.


The accounts were more likely blocked from a sell.


This reminds me of the Trump 2016 campaign and the Bitcoin 2017 bubble. It's the same avalanche of bullshit social media strike tactics.


The anger is justified.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: