Is the pace of change driving a signal/noise mismatch?

From When are prediction market prices most informative? by Alasdair Brown, J. James Reade, and Leighton Vaughan Williams. From the Abstract.

Prediction markets are a popular platform for the elicitation of incentivised crowd predictions. This paper examines the variation in the information contained in prediction market prices by studying Intrade prices on U.S. elections around the release of opinion polls. We find that poll releases stimulate an immediate uptick in trading activity. However, much of this activity involves relatively inexperienced traders, meaning that the price efficiency declines in the immediate aftermath of a poll release, and does not recover until more experienced traders enter the market in the following hours. More generally, this suggests that information releases do not necessarily improve prediction market forecasts, but instead may attract noise traders who temporarily reduce the price efficiency.

Not especially surprising but it sparks a thought. The finding is that parameter changes in information generate a decline in average informational value during the period when a larger and more diverse group of individuals (with lower average capability) evaluate the interpretation, relevance and significance of new information.

After a period of time, the low value commenters exit and the digestion and evaluation settles around the norm established by the more knowledgeable participants. Change in signal drives up the noise-to-signal ratio before it eventually refines back to the clearer signal.

If this is the natural life-cycle of knowledge disruptions, what does that suggest in an environment where increasing celerity steepens the S-curve and causes new changes to occur before the old changes have been assimilated?

Elsewhere I refer to this as the mean time of change being shorter than the mean time of change assimilation.

I wonder if my complaints about cognitive pollution, and indeed perhaps some aspect of the complaints about polarization, might not be in some way related to this phenomenon. Constant and accelerating change is driving greater noise in the public discourse, noise which gets louder and louder because there is insufficient processing time and insufficient trust in others/institutions to yield reliable clean signals.