Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinyhouse | Hacker News Reader

Because many people on social media encourage other people to give the app 1-point rating. That's something Google need to protect against. The poor rating should happen organically. But regardless, they are fucked.

View on HN

So because -company- does illegal thing and people respond by using whatever means they have Google should silence the masses of disaffected users just because some people changed their rating? That is some grade a:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

A rating is not a thing that an app deserves. It's a datapoint published by an app store to help its users make decisions about which apps to use.

As a user, I'd like to make sure that a trading app won't deny me the opportunity to actually make decent money.

The one thing does not exclude the other.

Google doesn't care whether Robinhood succeeds or not. It cares whether people trust the Play Store ratings (and more broadly, trust the Play Store itself). They'll do what's needed to achieve their goals, not Robinhood.

it similar to how hacker news penalizes submission that rally for upvotes (specifically I remember a discussion about how posting links of your submission to twitter can penalize it)

What Robinhood is doing now is unethical and illegal. By limiting to users to only selling these stocks Robinhood is manipulating the market.

Citadel is a major source of funding for Robinhood. Citadel owns Melvin Capital Management. Melvin Capital Management is on the hook for billions in losses for their GameStop shorts.

How can it be more clear than this? People should be warned away Robinhood after this. Robinhood & Citadel should both be sued for manipulation of securities.

Thousands (millions?) Of people lost money / opportunity because of the app. Then those people rate what they think of the app - that ir cannot be trusted to act in their interest.

Why should Google protect them against consequences of their own decisions?

Excellent point. This vote-mob isn't due to some extraneous BS like some other ones, it's a response to an unexpected and customer-hostile service restriction.

I don't see how anyone could trust Robinhood with their money in the future.

Do you expect that making money on the bubble should be quick and painless?

I expect that a broker won't arbitrarily make certain stocks "sell only" and cancel buy orders that have already been submitted.

Do you expect a trip down the highway will be free of highway robbery? It's called "highway robbery" for a reason... If you don't like it, stay off the highway!

It doesn't get more organic than word of mouth.

While vote flooding via some confined social circle is a form of trolling I don’t think this case fits that criteria. This news isn’t limited to a subreddit. This news is everywhere, suggesting any vote flood is more likely natural and organic than not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com