I think it's a non distinction to talk about short sellers who talk their book vs. short sellers who don't. Every investor big enough to move the market must disclose their positions as a matter of the law.

Even if that weren't the case, a basic assumption that every investor should keep at the back of their minds is that everyone is talking their book, always.

You suggest that merely talking your book is suspicious behavior, but literally everyone has to do so. Ackman's funds must disclose their positions, long and short in a 13f.

The shady behavior is when someone claims to not have a material position but does. You can even get in trouble for failing to mention material ownership in a stock you talk about.

Credit default swaps aren't magic. You can buy them, then badmouth a company and lose money. Just like you can buy calls on a company, talk about how great it is and see them expire worthless.

Concoda's point is that a stock can be obvious crap for years - even skyrocket in price during that period - and you can talk your book all you want but you can very easily lose your shirt (and more) trying to make the market see the light.

People still see shortsellers as bad but long-only investors as somehow good. Higher stock prices are only useful if you are a company insider or you want to sell today. I'll speak for myself and say I want lower stock prices. I want value. Right now I'm heavily in cash and short sellers are getting eaten alive in part because of the attitude that it's "suspicious" to be a short-seller in the public eye.