3 ms·

Clearly shows that every social platform that was launched with good intentions can be abused by snake-oil salesmen to promote their products. What would it ta

Clearly shows that every social platform that was launched with good intentions can be abused by snake-oil salesmen to promote their products. What would it take to weed this out? 1. Confirm holdings before posting. 2. Display holdings at time of posting to other users. 3. Defined area of expertise (not everyone is an expert in everything) - Always a nice warning sign if people are commenting on stocks all across industries. 4. Peer-reviewed posts. Posts only go live if other experts agree to it. 5. Reduced content velocity - Platforms like Twitter, Stocktwits, Commonstock promote this kind of behaviour by allowing a mix between opinion and insight.

snapcaster 4y ago
I don't think any of that would work. I'm not letting the criminals off the hook but we have to acknowledge that the people who are taking stock pick advice from "The Stock Sniper" on twitter are greedy morons. They aren't reading financial statements let alone some kind of peer-reviewed research. In fact, Bed Bath and Beyond stock cultists got confirmed (by SEC filings) dumped on by Ryan Cohen and they're still claiming he's somehow long on the company's future
- jsemrau 4y ago
  Everyone in that industry is greedy. That's why everyone is there, I suppose. The whole purpose is to make money. And the only way to make money is to take it away from someone who had the contrarian opinion. These people they prayed on were the uninformed and lazy. It's comparable to Sequoia investing in FTX. They just assumed that someone else had done their research before and went along for the ride. Now they wrote an apology note to their LPs. : https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073 https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073 How can a retail investor distinguish a good apple from a bad one? At least for "Zach Morris" he seemed successful with that scheme - https://twitter.com/margot_rubin/status/1603079409195425793/photo/1 https://twitter.com/margot_rubin/status/1603079409195425793/... At least to the extent that he got 10 properties to collect. So by that notion he is not "just some rando on Twitter". Finally. Both links I have provided were also posted on social media. The problem is that it is not easy to distinguish who is full of it and who is credible.
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    But it actually is quite easy for me and I expect most people on this HN thread. The people who aren't able to easily distinguish your two links are really dumb. If exposure to information would be able to make them not dumb it would have already. I just don't think any of these "lets verify facts" kind of schemes will work in here anymore than it didn't work in US politics (fact checkers etc.)

snapcaster 4y ago

I don't think any of that would work. I'm not letting the criminals off the hook but we have to acknowledge that the people who are taking stock pick advice from "The Stock Sniper" on twitter are greedy morons. They aren't reading financial statements let alone some kind of peer-reviewed research. In fact, Bed Bath and Beyond stock cultists got confirmed (by SEC filings) dumped on by Ryan Cohen and they're still claiming he's somehow long on the company's future

jsemrau 4y ago
Everyone in that industry is greedy. That's why everyone is there, I suppose. The whole purpose is to make money. And the only way to make money is to take it away from someone who had the contrarian opinion. These people they prayed on were the uninformed and lazy. It's comparable to Sequoia investing in FTX. They just assumed that someone else had done their research before and went along for the ride. Now they wrote an apology note to their LPs. : https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073 https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073 How can a retail investor distinguish a good apple from a bad one? At least for "Zach Morris" he seemed successful with that scheme - https://twitter.com/margot_rubin/status/1603079409195425793/photo/1 https://twitter.com/margot_rubin/status/1603079409195425793/... At least to the extent that he got 10 properties to collect. So by that notion he is not "just some rando on Twitter". Finally. Both links I have provided were also posted on social media. The problem is that it is not easy to distinguish who is full of it and who is credible.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  But it actually is quite easy for me and I expect most people on this HN thread. The people who aren't able to easily distinguish your two links are really dumb. If exposure to information would be able to make them not dumb it would have already. I just don't think any of these "lets verify facts" kind of schemes will work in here anymore than it didn't work in US politics (fact checkers etc.)