Maybe an app committed a sudden, devastating action against all of its users. That would be worth warning potential downloaders about, no?

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.

I believe half of Robinhood customers own GME, so it isn't at all unreasonable for all of those reviews to be disgruntled users.

In certain cases, it's deserved and appropriate. If an app is scammy and the majority of its users believes it's a bad app, it should have its rating dropped.

I consider review bombing a legitimate form of boycott.

"BOYCOTT, the refusal and incitement to refusal to have commercial or social dealings with any one on whom it is wished to bring pressure."

That is an interesting argument. My gut disagrees but purely rationally, I can't find any fault with it. This is something I will be pondering.

It's strange that you're ignoring the fact that if an app does something bad that affects many users, those many users will, reasonably, review the app poorly. You're implying that all sudden influxes of bad reviews are somehow illegitimate, which is a confusing position.

When it's positive, it's called "trending"

It provides a more timely signal about an app's rating.

In its absence, you'd have the Amazon effect -- accumulate five star volume, tank / exploit the product, coast as your average is very slowly dragged down.

Mobbing companies is completely fine and called boycotting. RH fucked up, now they must pay the price.

I don't know if that's a positive, but companies like Google often cave to the mob and the press demanding deplatforming of certain individuals. If they remove the ratings then that will just prove, once again, what their allegiances are. Except now a lot of people are watching really closely.

Literally this case