[TameAntelope]

Robinhood is, for many people, the only name they know in this space. Therefore, it must be their fault.

As the Internet grew, it raised the bar higher and higher on the "baseline" level of things one needed to reasonably know about before participating in any given conversation intelligently (bear with me). As a result, it became growingly acceptable to declare something one doesn't understand as morally "bad" for being complex, and since the experience of encountering something one didn't understand was widely shared, many folks pounced on that complexity as the problem, not their failure to grasp it.

It's infinitely easier to declare a system as "bad" than to spend time to understand why it's built the way it is. Robinhood just happens to be what many people think of as "the system", rather than the actual financial system Robinhood is built on top of.

I believe this could apply across a number of problems we're seeing online right now. Groups of people who band together (right or wrong) to rail against a system that exists for reasons they do not understand. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not, but every time you get that same whiff of populist anger such as what Robinhood is experiencing right now.