It's somewhat ironic to praise Robinhood's UI as "good experience" when the article itself is criticizing this same experience for how it's designed to be addictive, essentially turning investing into a game. Matt is not the first to make this point [1] [2]. To be clear, I don't mind praising certain features of Robinhood or even the idea of making it accessible to start investing small. I don't blame Robinhood even for this because they're not forcing anyone to trade. But dismissing this entire article and very valid criticism against Robinhood just because of your feelings on Taibbi is a bit much.
The last couple of paragraphs seem like an appropriate tldr:
> If and when IPO money comes, Robinhood will be on its way to becoming a finance version of Facebook: a free platform that keeps a sea of customers engaged with a hyper-stimulating user experience, while making money selling intelligence about those customers’ behaviors to expert wealth extractors on the other end.
> It’s the perfect mousetrap, among other things because of its name. “That’s the other thing,” says Brewster. “They call it Robin Hood.” Instead of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, the American version takes in the young and sells them to computer-powered hedge funds; this Robin Hood is the house that always wins. If there’s a more brilliant metaphor for capitalism in the Covid age, it’s hard to imagine.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/21/robinhood-is-having-a-moment...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-10-22/how-robin...