Forgive me for sounding like a Luddite, but…
April 29th, 2009 | Posted by Laura ParisiStockTwits? Really?!?
The site aggregates Twitter updates about stocks and investments, bringing newbie investors and savvy traders together for a conversation about what to buy and what to sell. In their words: “StockTwits is an open, community-powered investment idea and information service. You can think of it as Bloomberg for the little guy and gal.”
Now, believe me, I’m no skeptic of social media. Heck, I love Twitter. But StockTwits strikes me as an incredibly bad thing. Here’s why:
One of the repercussions of the End of Days has been a growing distrust of people who peddle financial advice. We saw this in the Jim Cramer-Daily Show feud, and we’re seeing this among the wealthy who are questioning the value of their financial advisors. We’re learning that finance experts are more like weathermen: they pretty much understand what’s on the horizon, but they can’t be certain it’s headed our way.
That said, it’s not like everyday people necessarily have the answers, either. Nobody cares about the piece of broccoli Joe Schmo is about to eat. So why should they care if he’s selling his shares of Google? There is no way to know that the people using StockTwits are a) knowledgeable or b) trustworthy.
Remember when blogs were new, and you couldn’t go a day without hearing the phrase “citizen journalists”? And during Twitter’s nascent stage, you’d hear stories about big media outlets being scooped by bystanders tweeting from a cell phone?
Today, the most trafficked blog on the Internet is the Huffington Post—an online newspaper. The only thing that separates it from its predecessors is its lack of a print version and its openness to reader comments. And Twitter? It’s saturated by media and marketers.
Yes, you can find blogs written by everyday people who have specific expertise in specific subjects, and what they publish can be (and often is) better than what we read in the newspapers. But just like with StockTwits, you can never really know who these people are and whether or not what they’re publishing is accurate. We rely on editors at media outlets to do that for us, just like we rely on financial experts to help us make important decisions with our money. Because someone needs to be a fact checker.
At a time when we all need a little more sound financial advice, is chitter-chatter in 140-character spurts really the medium for accessing it?
Not to mention that Bloomberg is already accessible to the little guy and gal…
April 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am
In my monthly OPB member’s guide, the inside cover page was devoted to reasons why one should not rely on blogs, tweets, etc. for news and should continue to seek out reputable news sources, like NPR and the New York Times. Fact checkers, yes! So under-rated and yet so crucial. I can see StockTwits (a very bad name, BTW) as an interesting feed for psychologists, anthropolgists and others who want to understand social media’s impact on the stock market, but not so helpful for me to grow my financial assets.