I'm surprised the app stores (well, at least the play store) don't have hysteresis built in to prevent mobbing the ratings, just in general.
But Amazon has no incentive to do so, because they would sell less items. Maybe with Steam the target market of gamers can direct so much more backlash towards something that doesn't work than the general audience of Amazon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"BOYCOTT, the refusal and incitement to refusal to have commercial or social dealings with any one on whom it is wished to bring pressure."
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.