everybody on ilx complains about reddit

those agreements dont really mean much but they really dont mean much if youve broken laws

regardless, people are still buying gamestop, and there are also lots of people with short positions on the stock. like, 122%, still, of the number of shares out there. the price is going to bounce back up as people can still buy it on other platforms.

robinhood to investors: these games must stop on our app!
*investor heads to robinhood app to buy GME, sees the games are stopped*
investor: noooooooooo

― (snoball), Thursday, January 28, 2021 1:01 PM (forty seconds ago in the alternate ilx as reddit reality) bookmarkflaglink

Source for link above

lmao xp

those agreements dont really mean much but they really dont mean much if youve broken laws

― lag∞n, Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:05 PM (fifty-three seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

Lol, where to I short Robinhood broker the law and is going to jail?

broker = broke

but, lol either way

doesnt have to mean jail there are all sorts of regulations, general reasonable assumptions etc, that could be problems for them in the context of a lawsuit

which is you know what we were talking about

i mean you cant just be like i said it was okay for us to rip you off in our terms of service, thats not actually how contracts work

who is holding the short positions? is it just these hedge funds we know about or are there anonymous players involved

And I am laughing at the prospects of such a lawsuit. What is the theory? I am somehow guaranteed access to trade through an app?

I assume they have legal exposure as the vehicle used by Reddit ringleaders etc currently under investigation by the the SEC, and they also have exposure for shutting down from customers. They probably figure the sec is more dangerous.

AvenDonn
1 hour ago
I want in on the action but I didn't use robinhood.

My bank was cucking me all day long but just in time for the dip, I bought.

SUE THEM SO HARD THAT THE CLASS ACTION GAINS BEAT THE FUCKING STOCK.
WE LOVE THE STOCK

3.0k

ftPIRG
1 hour ago
WE LOVE THE STOCK

608

TheOcean24
1 hour ago
THIS GUY HAS A POINT I DO LOVE THE STOCK 😤👐💎

there is a weird poetry to this subreddit

i don't understand what the SEC can investigate the redditors for. it seems like over-shorting it was sleazier than what the small players did.

And I am laughing at the prospects of such a lawsuit. What is the theory? I am somehow guaranteed access to trade through an app?

― Smokahontas and John Spliff (PBKR), Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:12 PM (twenty-three seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah when you put money in to stock trading app being able to you know trade stocks on it seems like a reasonable expectation, and if people can demonstrate that your actions cost them money its not unreasonable to ask for compensation, i mean who knows how it will play out but the shape of the thing is extremely obvious

it's you, treeship. you hold all the shorts.

Lol, the SEC is too busy helping the fed shove money into the economy to prop it up. I don't see them doing shit.

If I were going to bet who is most likely to get dinged by the SEC, it's the redditers.

xp to caek

hold deez shortz

it's you, treeship. you hold all the shorts.

― Yerac, Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:17 PM (thirty-four seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

aren't you my advisor? how could you do this to me

this is all v funny, and i get yerac's point that wsb isn't entirely terrible incels. but the majority of posts there are gross and always have been. the lingo doesn't necessarily translate into ignorance of wall street, but it's a community with a gross "edgelord libertarian joke post" style that is probably the opposite of what ilx aspires to be. they definitely draw randos into gambling away more money than they probably should, and this is just another chapter of that.

it's you, treeship. you hold all the shorts.

― Yerac, Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:17 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

shorts all winter

i don't understand what the SEC can investigate the redditors for. it seems like over-shorting it was sleazier than what the small players did.

"you murdered the guy that did 2 murders, so we'll just let you go"

"it was your memorabilia, O.J., we get it"

i don't know if that is a good analogy. what is the murder here?

what is even the memorabilia?

the friends we made along the way

From Robinhood's Terms and Conditions:

You agree that, without notice, Robinhood may terminate these Terms and Conditions, or suspend your
access to the Service or the Content, with or without cause at any time and effective immediately. These
Terms and Conditions will terminate immediately without notice from Robinhood if you, in Robinhood’s
sole discretion, fail to comply with any provision of these Terms and Conditions. Robinhood shall not be
liable to you or any third party for the termination or suspension of the Service or the Content, or any
claims related to such termination or suspension.
Robinhood and/or the Third-Party Providers may discontinue or modify the Content, or any portion thereof,
at any time. You release and agree to indemnify and hold harmless Robinhood, and the Third-Party
Providers, for any loss or damages arising from or relating to such discontinuation or modification.

Robinhood disabled access to a handful out of millions of stocks and they're going to be liable? I don't think so.

again terms and conditions are basically meaningless, this isnt a tv show where you can trick someone into signing a contract

it's not legal just because it's in the TOS. that's not how the law works.

what is the murder here?

― treeship., Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:24 PM (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

not murder, murdaaaa

They hedge fund guy shorted these stocks now we can’t buy them ppl start selling out of fear... we lose money they make money on the short... THIS IS A FUCKING CRIME!!!

— Ja Rule (@jarule) January 28, 2021

a kiss is not a contract, as they say

you can't pay someone less than minimum wage just because it says you're going to do it in the contract they sign

i know all of our marketing materials say one thing but look over here at the fine print it says another... checkmate

👀

Americans are told to invest in the market. But when they start to threaten the profits of billionaires, strange things happen.
If anyone on Wall Street with short positions in particular stocks used their power to cut off the public from buying those stocks, send them to prison.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 28, 2021

i am not a contract lawyer but iirc whether terms and conditions are binding is not an easy question, they are not "basically meaningless," and it is not "how the law works." in fact the one thing i remember most from contracts class is my professor castigating people who said or wrote the word "clearly" in anything.

paying someone less than minimum wage is a great example of a statute or regulation superseding terms of a contract! do the statutes/regs say an app can't do this? i mean i hope so but that would not mean t&c are meaningless.

exactly what a lawyer would say!

a little cruel to post tweets on ilx in which squad members agree with reddit posters. like the part in infinite jest where the stoner's phone and doorbell ring at the same time.

The case that the SEC _might_ end up looking closely at the Reddit side of this trade is laid out pretty clearly here under "But is it securities fraud?" in Levine's Tuesday newsletter https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-wallstreetbets-face-sec-scrutiny-after-gamestop-rally

Levine is not buying it, but he's not not buying it. The SEC will take a look, and that might have been enough for Robinhood to say "cutting these people off and getting sued is less risky than not cutting these people off and being investigated by the SEC".

I mean clearly fuck them, as AOC and Ilhan Omar says, but it's not an irrational thing for them to do.

there are probably certain circumstances where a brokerage can prevent someone from buying and other circumstances where they can't. like robin hood probably wouldn't be allowed to sell a bunch of its users' stocks because doing so profited them. i mean, maybe, but it seems like they would have to prove that they took this action to protect the consumer in some way. (that is what they claim in the message -- that it was too risky of a position for the user).

paying someone less than minimum wage is a great example of a statute or regulation superseding terms of a contract! do the statutes/regs say an app can't do this? i mean i hope so but that would not mean t&c are meaningless.

― superdeep borehole (harbl), Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:38 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i agree with this. i just don't think quoting the T&C on a message board is sufficient to settle the issue.

i think we should argue about what basically meaningless means in this context

explain

i can't read that bloomberg argument but there is nothing to see on the subreddit for the SEC. Like they would have to try very hard and it would be intimidation more than anything.

i can't read that bloomberg argument but there is nothing to see on the subreddit for the SEC. Like they would have to try very hard and it would be intimidation more than anything.

― Yerac, Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:46 PM (twenty-one seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

great plugin btw, they have one for firefox too https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

I am not a contract lawyer but iirc whether terms and conditions are binding is not an easy question, they are not "basically meaningless," and it is not "how the law works." in fact the one thing i remember most from contracts class is my professor castigating people who said or wrote the word "clearly" in anything.

paying someone less than minimum wage is a great example of a statute or regulation superseding terms of a contract! do the statutes/regs say an app can't do this? i mean i hope so but that would not mean t&c are meaningless.

― superdeep borehole (harbl), Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:38 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Basically, if Robinhood did their T&C correctly and kept records of each users acceptance of those T&C, then they are enforceable.

https://bostonbarjournal.com/2019/06/06/look-before-you-click-the-enforceability-of-website-and-smartphone-app-terms-and-conditions/

Both unknowns right now, but not, "meaningless".