[skohan]

"adoption" is the terminology used by the foundation, and symbolic adoption is a known quantity in this type of operation so I don't have a problem with it.

However referring to wallstreet bets users as "investors" does seem like a bit of a misnomer...

[iso1631]

I think "investors", with the quotes, is quite accurate

"investors" would be wrong

""investors"" would be fine

How do you quote this type of quote?

[TeMPOraL]

"\"investors\"", obviously :).

[iso1631]

"\"\\\"investors\\\"\"" sounds reasonable, what could possible go wrong

[eCa]

Different types of quotes:

    ’investors’

    ’”investors”’

[reaperducer]

How do you quote this type of quote?

In the United States, it's "'investors.'" Just like you've seen in books where a character is quoting another character.

[oneeyedpigeon]

> investors

would be wrong

> "investors"

would be fine

[blfr]

"Adoption" is fine on the foundation website with context. Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario.

[reaperducer]

Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario.

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.

[teawrecks]

What do you think is happening when people "adopt a highway"?

[blfr]

Pretty much this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pothole

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."

[SilasX]

I kind of agree with parent. While I don’t have a problem with symbolic use of adoption, I do have a problem with “multiple adoption”.

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.

[skohan]

I guess in my mind, the point of the adoption is that the "adopter" has a point of personal connection with the funding they are providing, and they can hang a picture on the wall to remind themselves why they are supporting this cause.

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.

[SilasX]

>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.

[marcosdumay]

My only issue is that "Reddit investors" means people that invest on Reddit, while the article is about people that speculate with stocks (kinda ok to call them investors) and use Reddit.

Still, I don't know how to improve the headline.

[skohan]

Yeah I think the term "Reddit investors" is fine - along the lines of "main-street investors" or "wall-street investors".

I think it probably is more ambiguous to people on this board than the general population since people here are particularly VC-minded.