3 ms·
The title is overly pessimistic. We may have wanted flying cars, but the mobile internet is far more empowering/revolutionary than moving cars to the air. The
by timinman 13y ago
The title is overly pessimistic. We may have wanted flying cars, but the mobile internet is far more empowering/revolutionary than moving cars to the air.
The problem the article highlights will self-correct. Twitter is a good additional news source because it is unfiltered and because of the multiplicity of sources, although we need to adapt to taking news in this form. I wouldn't buy or sell stock, or do anything drastic based on one source. Logic dictates that if the White House were bombed, lots of people on the ground in Washington DC should also be tweeting about it. As we become more savvy, Twitter's influence (the problem according to the OP) will actually be more of an asset. It probably already is.
- ysekand 13y agoReacting to unverified information is really dumb - that is the point here.
- gd1 13y agoActually it isn't dumb. If you had to assign a probability to that tweet being true when you read it, then what would you say? 20%? 40%? So yes, given that there is a real probability that the markets are about to tank, that would effect your valuation instantly.
- ysekand 13y agoYou have a point there.
- Houshalter 13y agoIf it was dumb people wouldn't be making money doing it. If information like that is only accurate 55% of the time it's still better than random (and even random would break even.)