Robinhood Reportedly Selling People’s GME Positions Without Warning, Investors Sue

originally posted by: loam

Racists!

They name "hate speech, glorifying violence and spreading misinformation" as reasons for 'being on the radar', but those 3 can be pretty much found in every entertainment production, especially the "glorifying violence" one.

The world today is infatuated with violence. To be sure, violence has always been featured in entertainment. However, “in recent years,” says the Media Awareness Network, “something about media violence has changed. For one thing, there’s more of it.” For another, it is “much more graphic, much more sexual, and much more sadistic.” Consider the following.

Music: Songs featuring increasingly violent lyrics “have moved into the mainstream of the music industry,” says the above source. Using filthy language, some songs glorify murder and rape, even of wives and mothers.

Video Games: “The uncomfortable fact is, videogames have an unhealthy obsession with bloodshed,” stated a British magazine for video-game enthusiasts. It added: “To some degree, a love of videogames demands a love of violence.” For example, one popular game enables players to simulate beating women to death with baseball bats. Some authorities believe that video games, being interactive, may have a more powerful negative influence on children than TV does.

Movies: Studies show that violence, sex, and profanity have increased significantly in movies, and ratings may not be a reliable guide. Moreover, it is not just the “bad guys” who are violent. Nearly half the violence depicted on TV, in movies, and in music videos is committed by the “good guys,” according to one study.

News: “If it bleeds, it leads” is the guiding principle for many TV-news producers. News is big business, and newsmen know that violence attracts viewers and that high viewer ratings attract advertisers, who finance TV programming in many lands.

Web Sites: Both virtual and real-life images of torture, dismemberment, mutilation, and murder are available on the Internet. Many children visit these sites.

Can Media Violence Influence You?

Does violence in television, movies, books, music, and other forms of entertainment influence people? Granted, those profiting from media violence often argue that their products do no harm. But consider this: To influence people’s thinking, the business world pays billions of dollars for commercials, each of which may be just 30 seconds in length. Is it reasonable, then, to assume that a 90-minute movie, the heroes of which may be immoral and violent, will have little or no effect, especially on the impressionable minds of children?

Some point to evidence that various forms of modern communication may encourage aggressive conduct. Regular exposure to violence depicted on television, in movies, in video games, and on the Internet is said to desensitize the conscience and inspire violent crimes. Dr. Daniel Borenstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, stated: “At this time there are more than 1,000 studies based on more than 30 years of research demonstrating a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.” Before a U.S. Senate committee, Dr. Borenstein testified: “We are convinced that repeated exposure to entertainment violence in all its forms has significant public health implications.”

Specific cases are often cited to show that this is true. In the case of a triggerman involved in the cold-blooded murder of a couple watching the sunrise on a beach, prosecutors presented evidence that the thrill killing was inspired by repeated viewing of a violent movie. In a school shooting where 15 people were killed, the two student perpetrators were said to have spent hours each day playing violent video games. Additionally, they repeatedly watched movies glorifying violence and killing.

Dr. Richard F. Corlin, past president of the American Medical Association, delivered a speech to a group of graduating doctors in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. In it he spoke about computer games that encourage violence. Some of these games award points for flesh wounds, more for a body shot, and even more for a head shot. Blood spurts out, and brain tissue spatters all over.

Dr. Corlin commented that children are not allowed to drive, not allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, and not allowed to smoke when they are too young. Then he said: “But we do let them be trained to be shooters at an age when they have not yet developed their impulse control and have none of the maturity and discipline to safely use the weapons they are playing with. . . . We need to teach our children from the beginning that violence [has] consequences​—serious consequences—​all the time.”

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

That being the case, I would temper expectations that if everyone simply hops platforms from RH to Fidelity, the targeted short squeezing won't get locked down at Fidelity too at some point. If Wall Street wants to freeze trading on specific securities to protect their own, they will do this with impunity.

Well you say that but, I did a little digging the past 3 days, not only does fidelity own a 9.75% stake in GME shares through one of its own funds. It also owns its own clearing house too. They are about as independent as they could get from the rest of Wall Street...they're even based in Boston. Not saying its not possible I guess...but very very unlikely as of yet.

Until someone threatens their pile of money or potential income, profits or business, then you can see what is more important to them.

Those whose lives center around materialism*, won't help the little guy if it's not in their own interest, and won't stick out their necks for them if it hurts their interests. *: One dictionary defines materialism as “a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things.” Thus, materialism is rooted in our desires, our priorities, and our focus in life. It involves much more than simply having abundant wealth or possessions. And you don't need to be working for or with the so-called "establishment" or "the rest of Wall Street" (as you put it) in order to prioritize your own materialistic interests first.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well I did a bit of homework...their income is in the trillions total. They are not going to be bullied around. Again they also own the largest outside investment of shares in said company so it's in their interest for it to do well. As of this post there has been no GME related restrictions to my account or any other I have heard of.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

We all knew the ride would not last.

I stumbled on this article, but I know there are a lot of people hurting out there. Another situation were the internet provided a brief adrenaline rush, and a long time for regret.

It seems for the handful that made a killing, a much larger number got killed. Who didn't see that coming. The internet wins again.

Reminded of my trips to the casino. I was cheap. $25 is all I would take out of my pocket. If I won more than $25, the $25 went back in my pocket, and I would play with casino money. I put all winnings in my pocket, only playing with the $25. When $25 was gone, it was gone.

I am cheap, the most I ever won playing like that, was a little over $800. But I never went home broke.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

We all knew the ride would not last.

I stumbled on this article, but I know there are a lot of people hurting out there. Another situation were the internet provided a brief adrenaline rush, and a long time for regret.

It seems for the handful that made a killing, a much larger number got killed. Who didn't see that coming. The internet wins again.

Reminded of my trips to the casino. I was cheap. $25 is all I would take out of my pocket. If I won more than $25, the $25 went back in my pocket, and I would play with casino money. I put all winnings in my pocket, only playing with the $25. When $25 was gone, it was gone.

I am cheap, the most I ever won playing like that, was a little over $800. But I never went home broke.

www.nytimes.com...

That’s a pay site, I don’t subscribe to NYT.

Anyways I don’t think that was the point, the point was for people to buy what they could afford and not sell the stock, hold it and let the short sellers eat it.

Obviously that didn’t last long. Darn it.

a reply to: 38181

Once people started seeing green, it was over.

I understand what the plan was, and it was an interesting experiment, but people are too easily manipulated. Most are followers, with few being able to think it through and to act independently.

This may sound like I am being snarky, I don't mean to be. I am just aware of how society is changing us, and not always for the better.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I agree with you, and no your not being snarky.

Let’s try this with the cruise lines!

originally posted by: 38181

That’s a pay site, I don’t subscribe to NYT.

Anyways I don’t think that was the point, the point was for people to buy what they could afford and not sell the stock, hold it and let the short sellers eat it.

Obviously that didn’t last long. Darn it.

NYT is free. You can sign up using a fake email.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

I didn't sign up, and I didn't pay anything. I had no trouble viewing the article. ???????

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: AutomateThis1

I didn't sign up, and I didn't pay anything. I had no trouble viewing the article. ???????

I think you get like five free articles a month. There's ways around it, but it's easier just to use a fake email.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: AutomateThis1

I didn't sign up, and I didn't pay anything. I had no trouble viewing the article. ???????

I think you get like five free articles a month. There's ways around it, but it's easier just to use a fake email.

Thanks. It just showed up as a search result while I was looking for something else.