[WJW]

I don't understand why you seem to be so sure that there is indeed "no bread inside"? If an investor buys a share of GME on the stock market, it does not matter at all if they buy it from a shorter, a retail investor or even from GME itself. A share is a share, there are no "empty bags" being sold. Shares also don't go off like bread, so if you get your share back at the end it is like nothing happened: you still own one share and it is of exactly the same quality as before. Unless you are a VERY large investor, having your broker lend out shares also has zero impact on being able to sell it at any time.

A short seller making a bet that a stock goes down by selling the stock is simply the same (but in reverse) as someone betting the stock will go up by buying a stock. The underlying business is not affected at all.

[SilasX]

The parent's point was that it does matter if it was sold by someone who had never secured a share of their own to sell in the first place, which puts artificial pressure on prices.

(And before someone jumps in to give me the speech about how the future of civilization depends on market makers being able to fabricate shares long enough to cover: Yes, I know about the exception that permits this. The purpose of my comment was just to clarify what the argument was and that the parent of this comment was not replying to it.)

[WJW]

It does put (a little) pressure on prices, sure. Borrowing money to buy stocks puts a little extra upward pressure on prices. But neither is illegal, neither brings guaranteed profits (naked shorting is regulated so much exactly because of the risks to unrelated market participants if the stock goes up) and neither has the capability to directly harm the underlying company.

[SilasX]

Again, the parent was talking about fabricating non-existent shares, not borrowing existing ones.