>What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence?
You, not the general concept of the reader, but you personally neya. You stop trusting Bloomberg's reporting. That's the consequence. Their reputation suffers.
Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?
The thing is – if you have such an incentive and you are faced with the choice between reporting a boring truth or a spiced up lie, you will go for the later. And that has nothing to do with journalism anymore.
It _could_ work – if the editors are espeically on the hunt for bogus stories.
The reason trading on stocks they cover is bad is that it creates an incentive to create news that may not be true to move the market, thus indirectly rewarding them with financial benefit.
The policy of rewarding them for moving the market simply removes the intervening steps and directly rewards them.
In concept, this only makes it worse. How much worse depends on how compensated they are, which I don't know. (e.g., if the bonus is $50 and your boss buys you a latte the next morning, it's not really that big a deal, vs. if it's $25,000 and everyone knows it's a fast track to promotions it's a pretty significant problem)
I can see how it incentivises sensationalism though. I was a tech magazine editor. I did my utmost to check the veracity of stories. I would have hated to think that my journalists were being incentivised to exaggerate.
> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?
I, personally, am sick of being lied to. Single source reportage violates journalism 101; they really should suffer some consequences, just as someone should pay for the 2008 bubble, the Iraq war (Bill Kristol ... finally losing one of his platforms) and any number of other examples of the managerial class' screw ups from the last 20 years.
Hundreds of locked-in AAPL shareholders who react with venom to anyone perceived to be hurting their financial performance, irrespective of truth or morality. (Same is true for FB and GOOG.)
> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?
Let's say the Bloomberg article incurred 50% loss of revenues after it was published for Super Micro. (just making up numbers for the sake of the argument). Following this, Super Micro would have to scale down their operations and potentially fire people.
That's just the same thing as sending a DMCA request on Youtube for something that is someone's own work. Currently it's "free" to do so, but don't you think there should be consequences in destroying someone's else business / reputation / work? How would you feel if it happened to you?
Bloomberg has no intrinsic power over the revenue of Super Micro. They only have that influence because people trust them. People only trust them because their reports tend to be trustworthy.
False reports harm Bloomberg, as it erode their trustworthiness and trustworthiness is very nearly their only actual value/product. False reporting is inherently its own repercussion/consequence here.
This is different from DMCA as that has power granted to it by law, not by inherent trust. DMCA does also have consequences for fake claims, so it's a false equivalency here anyway.
> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?
Seeing a situation where one person/group does something that negatively affects another group without consequence tends to have this emotional response from emotionally healthy individuals.
Where do you see a problem with this type of response?
You, not the general concept of the reader, but you personally neya. You stop trusting Bloomberg's reporting. That's the consequence. Their reputation suffers.
Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?