> absolutely nothing about the content of the article other than the emotions it's supposed to provoke, which usually turns out to be a gross exaggeration of th

> absolutely nothing about the content of the article other than the emotions it's supposed to provoke, which usually turns out to be a gross exaggeration of the article's actual emotive pull. Furthermore, at least according to the BBC article, this tweet was responsible for the massive crash, in that the crash only happened after that tweet revealed the source (and investors panicked when they saw that the info came from a reputable source). That chain of causality may be up for debate, but the facts reported in the article at least support the headline. The reason Buzzfeed & co. are so reprehensible is that the articles themselves often don't match the headlines they use[0]. I always feel cheated when I read one of those articles, because it's a bait-and-switch. [0] It's not surprising that Buzzfeed headlines don't match the contents, since AFAIK they A/B test headlines and location (on the frontpage) obsessively. It's hard to optimize for both clicks and relevance when you generate headlines algorithmically, and it's pretty clear which one they care more about.