4 ms·

It seems there is money to be made distinguishing fake tweets from real ones.

by xefer 13y ago

signalsignal 13y ago
Yes, it's called journalism.
- antoko 13y ago
  Really? There's money to be made in journalism? http://stateofthemedia.org/files/2012/03/1-Newspaper-Print-Advertising-Revenue-Falls-Online-Grows.png http://stateofthemedia.org/files/2012/03/1-Newspaper-Print-A... http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/newspaper.jpg http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/newspape...
  - moondowner 13y ago
    I think he meant journalists are the ones checking and distinguishing between real and distinguishing/false information.
    - jff 13y ago
      Equally laughable.
  - signalsignal 13y ago
    Yes. You've only linked to print advertising and newspapers' declining revenue, i.e printing on dead trees. Printing on paper then selling that paper isn't a requirement for journalism to happen.
    - antoko 13y ago
      Apparently you didn't bother to click on them and view the image - the first one clearly shows online as a fraction of the total revenue for 2011 - sitting at around 10% of the industry's $24bn.
      - signalsignal 13y ago
        Good. Adapt or die.
fchollet 13y ago
But there is much more money to be made in reacting to the news at millisecond speed, and therefore without any critical analysis whatsoever. Many of the orders that caused the drops were probably placed by machines. Real-time semantic analysis-triggered trading seems to be what the kids are up to these days...
- xefer 13y ago
  That's sort of my (somewhat cynical) point: if everyone else is reacting ridiculously to fake news, moving against them would pay off I suppose. I wonder who lost money dumping shares?
- theorique 13y ago
  Yes, it's not what is "true", it is what other people collectively believe to be "true" that moves the market. As a great man once said, the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid. Therefore, there is money in predicting the irrational responses of others.
jordan0day 13y ago
For a fun conspiracy theory (or at least, future conspiracy theory), consider that the "hackers" could have been paid by someone to take control of the AP's twitter feed and post something that might cause such a reaction. The temporary dip could make a lot of money for someone who was expecting it. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it wouldn't be surprising to hear about some fund or investment firm employing such a tactic in the future. Just imagine what would happen if organized crime got into the HFT game? That is, assuming they're not in it already.
untog 13y ago
Good luck with that. There is nothing about "White House attacked" that is less plausible than "bomb attack on Boston marathon".

It seems there is money to be made distinguishing fake tweets from real ones.

by xefer 13y ago

It seems there is money to be made distinguishing fake tweets from real ones.

signalsignal 13y ago

Yes, it's called journalism.

antoko 13y ago
Really? There's money to be made in journalism? http://stateofthemedia.org/files/2012/03/1-Newspaper-Print-Advertising-Revenue-Falls-Online-Grows.png http://stateofthemedia.org/files/2012/03/1-Newspaper-Print-A... http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/newspaper.jpg http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/newspape...
- moondowner 13y ago
  I think he meant journalists are the ones checking and distinguishing between real and distinguishing/false information.
  - jff 13y ago
    Equally laughable.
- signalsignal 13y ago
  Yes. You've only linked to print advertising and newspapers' declining revenue, i.e printing on dead trees. Printing on paper then selling that paper isn't a requirement for journalism to happen.
  - antoko 13y ago
    Apparently you didn't bother to click on them and view the image - the first one clearly shows online as a fraction of the total revenue for 2011 - sitting at around 10% of the industry's $24bn.
    - signalsignal 13y ago
      Good. Adapt or die.

fchollet 13y ago

But there is much more money to be made in reacting to the news at millisecond speed, and therefore without any critical analysis whatsoever. Many of the orders that caused the drops were probably placed by machines. Real-time semantic analysis-triggered trading seems to be what the kids are up to these days...

xefer 13y ago
That's sort of my (somewhat cynical) point: if everyone else is reacting ridiculously to fake news, moving against them would pay off I suppose. I wonder who lost money dumping shares?
theorique 13y ago
Yes, it's not what is "true", it is what other people collectively believe to be "true" that moves the market. As a great man once said, the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid. Therefore, there is money in predicting the irrational responses of others.

jordan0day 13y ago

For a fun conspiracy theory (or at least, future conspiracy theory), consider that the "hackers" could have been paid by someone to take control of the AP's twitter feed and post something that might cause such a reaction. The temporary dip could make a lot of money for someone who was expecting it. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it wouldn't be surprising to hear about some fund or investment firm employing such a tactic in the future. Just imagine what would happen if organized crime got into the HFT game? That is, assuming they're not in it already.

untog 13y ago

Good luck with that. There is nothing about "White House attacked" that is less plausible than "bomb attack on Boston marathon".