I am a professional trader, and by almost any definition I operate in the "high frequency" space. First, let's establish that Traders is an authority on the real world of financial markets in the same sense that PC World is an authority in the world of technology.

So I've not read the linked article, nor am I going to. But I will say this: HFT does perform a viable, necessary economic function. A well-functioning capital market absolutely requires this kind of activity.

HOWEVER, like most mainstream-media memes, what gets talked about / opined on is almost never relevant to what is actually important and/or controversial: in this case, the question of whether HFT creates a two-tiered playing field where individual (read: non-technically-sophisticated) investors suffer at the hands of the "pros".

Most arguments against HFT basically say that algorithms are purely predatory and only serve to hurt the performance of large investors. This is naive at best and deceptive at worst; for every share I purchase "ahead of" a big order, a seller has been filled at the price he desired. Every transaction has two sides; you can't just pick one and say they got screwed. The other side has to have done as well as the other did poorly (assuming a fictional frictionless world).

The reality is that HFT requires tons of knowledge and a technology budget of seven figures per annum at the barest minimum, and this provides a very real barrier to entry. What should be talked about, but never is: is that ok? Why or why not? What ramifications does it have?