The title is confusing, perhaps worth changing "Reddit investors" to "Wall Street Bets users" or something similar. I genuinely thought the article would talk about owners of Reddit, not it's users.
However referring to wallstreet bets users as "investors" does seem like a bit of a misnomer...
"investors" would be wrong
""investors"" would be fine
How do you quote this type of quote?
’investors’
’”investors”’In the United States, it's "'investors.'" Just like you've seen in books where a character is quoting another character.
would be wrong
> "investors"
would be fine
Some people see "animal adoption" and think about how you can sponsor a critter at your local zoo.
Some people see "animal adoption" and see hillbilly tailer park side show TV shows.
I guess it's all in your life experiences.
And more seriously, people actually do adopt animals and bring them home or to some enclosure. There are supposedly more tigers in captivity in Texas than in the wild.
So my guess was not that crazy. Especially considering that it would be a much more captivating if less noble story than "redditors raised money for gorillas."
When I think of a donor “adopting” a case, I have a model of “this donation sufficed for lifetime care of that case”. If one donation isn’t sufficient, then maybe a group of donations would collectively be the adoption.
You shouldn’t have a scenario where there are more adoptions than cases (gorillas in this one). I mean imagine if a foster agency said they processed five adoptions but had only two children.
Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla.
I never suggested or hinted at that, just that it was misleading to call it adoption, if they're not granted a kind of "owning" of that relationship, in the sense of that donor is "the" supporter of that gorilla [pair]. If they want to call it "supporting", I wouldn't consider that misleading.
Still, I don't know how to improve the headline.
I think it probably is more ambiguous to people on this board than the general population since people here are particularly VC-minded.
We don't have to be mega pedantic about words not being used for its literal meaning. The Dian Fossey Fund uses the word "adopt" in a symbolic way like many other charities do: