I'd treat anything like this with a huge pinch of salt.
I'm following the discussions a bit, lots of comments by people spreading conspiracy theories, comments asking for evidence are just downvoted, or met by the conspiracy theorist's favorite, "do your research", comments spreading disinformation like "citadel owns robinhood" with a tweet as the only source, people who have no idea how market functions talking about "naked shorting", etc. The disinformation spreads faster than it takes to rebut it.
Consider:
* Most conspiracy theories are false.
* Many conspiracies do exist. I've seen people involved in a few.
In conspiracies, people keep secrets. Ergo, there's a poor mapping between actual conspiracies and conspiracy theories. People are speculating with no evidence. On the other hand, the conspiracies I've seen, you haven't heard of, and you probably won't.
The CIA is quite literally the US government covert agency set up to meddle in foreign affairs. It's raison d'être is to:
1. Collect covert intelligence for the US
2. Undermine enemies of the US / support friends of the US
A vague statement like "The CIA is involved in conspiracies" or even slightly less vague "The CIA lies and sometimes vilifies people" are almost vacuously true. That's literally what a covert government agency is designed to do.
A conspiracy theory is much more specific. "The CIA assassinated [leader] on [date] by [some action that looked like an accident] in order to [favorable outcome]." Most of those, with blanks filled in, are paranoid nonsense. If the CIA is doing it's job, I'll never find out about whom it assassinated or why. On the other hand, a blanket statement like "The CIA sometimes engages in assassinations" is obviously true. We have plenty of records from times the CIA slipped up.
As far as associating people with crazy by associating conspiracy theories with them, we're not even at the level of CIA. We're at the level of municipal politics, divorce cases, executive battles, and corporate PR smear campaigns.
If the CIA isn't involved in conspiracies, where are my tax dollars going?
Yes, this is definitely one of the cookie-cutter responses. Dubious claims of "so many sources" but they are just super busy and can't be bothered to link to a single one.
It's not like a journalist right now can tell Robinhood "give us all your internal emails so we can verify the reason you've stopped trading these stocks". Or "Hey Discord, let's look at your internal slack comms so we can figure out what evidence you had to conclude that the WSB chat rooms were filled with hatespeech." Or "give us a data-dump of all the users and comments you identified as hatespeech".
How about some regulation in that regard? Hey EU? Here's an idea for a possible scenario and how it could look:
1. Public company makes contentious claims.
2. Curious individual (maybe journalist) makes formal request for data to confirm.
3. By law, company above is obligated to provide access.
4. Individual gets given a secure-room, no-data-copying-allowed physical access to inspect and analyze said data.
5. Individual is allowed to report on said data.
Edit. Formatting.
If you think Kan is a conspiracy theorist making baseless accusations, we see the world very differently. Which is fine. Diversity of thought is always welcomed in my opinion. But I am curious how you can have that opinion. It seems so clear to me, so I'm a bit confused as to how someone can hold the oppsite view.
https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315?s=2...
Yes, I do, multiple people in fact (which I refuse to name drop). That’s why I replied to you the way I did in my other sibling comment. Him tweeting it means somebody told him, and likely he trusts that person. Billionaires are humans like anyone else, they sometimes trust the wrong people. They can also fall victim to “hearing what they want to hear”. They also have a lot of folks who want to win favor with them and thus will intentionally or unintentionally take information out of context and oversell it as something it isn’t. The ultimate point is that thinking a billionaire won’t possibly be misled/deceived themselves and then share wrong info (Elon Musk has had this happen a few times as an example, but he’s far from alone), or won’t deceive others for their benefit (there’s a “household name” in the US that immediately comes to mind as an example, leave it to you to decide who I mean), just seems naive to me.
I was definitely assigning him some kind of value that he may or may not have based on his success. Thanks for pointing out this flaw in my train of thought.
Have a wonderful day!
Which is definitely reasonable, but my point was that doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion you assumed. Hope I’ve helped, but either way, have a wonderful day yourself!
So rich people are never lied to by people they trust? I get it, you trust him, but thinking just because he “has a source” saying it doesn’t automatically makes it factually correct. Maybe it is, but appeals to authority and essentially calling anyone who disbelieves crazy doesn’t compute for me.
It doesn't even make a lot of sense as the part of Citadel that executes trades cannot talk to the part of Citadel that takes short positions, and vice versa.
Probably because it’s the law that there’s barriers put in place, that’s why? Like some communication will inevitably happen, but there are compliance teams who’s job it is to ensure it’s at a minimum.
Thank you, I will be here all day.
Isn't everybody working from home? How do you overhear things?
Calling this a conspiracy theory is...inaccurate in my opinion.
So yes. It's literally a conspiracy theory.
Market manipulation is happening but mostly cuz Robinhood doesn't do anything on their own they rely on other companies