Is there any actual evidence of naked short selling? The only evidence I've seen people raising is that the total value of the shorts was over 100%, but that can happen completely legitimately if the people who buy from short sellers allow the stock to be sold short a second (or third, fourth, ...) time.
I don't get why loaning out an already loaned stock is legal. Short selling should be limited to first gen loans. Otherwise it's like Beavis and Butthead in the Candy Store episode where they keep loaning the same dollar back and forth.
While shorts were really high, GME also consistently had insane failure to deliver rates and was regularly on the threshold securities list.
You seem to be under the impression that a stock can’t be shorted more than 100% without naked short selling. This is not true.