[KirillPanov]

Financial news is like a TV channel that plays nothing but commercials. In the sense that every story is trying to get you to do something very specific that enriches the storyteller.

I don't know why anybody would want that.

[GlennS]

> I don't know why anybody would want that.

I think the answer is probably something like gambling addiction.

While I use a very basic/standard passive investing approach myself, I do believe there are people who have genuine skill at active investing, particularly when they are handling relatively small amounts of money.

But I don't think any of them get there by absorbing walls of buy/sell recommendations.

[Ntrails]

That is not precisely true? When an article runs about a merger announcement, or earnings releases or even a new supplier relationship or big sale agreement... all those things are legitimate news that should affect your expected future cashflows.

[strogonoff]

I think there is a realm of events in general, and a realm of financial investments.

As a rule, events affect investments.

Because of that, the choice of which events to report and which to disregard (one cannot report literally everything, so criteria always apply), from which angle to interpret events (selectively omitting or highlighting aspects can go a long way), etc. is inevitably influenced by financial interests of link aggregator or link submitter, who would certainly like their existing investments to appreciate and their future investments to depreciate—and the more they did or plan to invest, the more they stand to gain or lose.

This already applies to news in general, and it just seemed to me it’d be amplified to rampant intensity if we are talking not any news, but stock news specifically. Not to discard the idea, but to highlight the value of such a platform as a target for manipulation, should it gain traction.