3 ms·
Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a
by ipsin 11y ago
Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a cover for a land-grab".
- such_a_casual 11y agoThere is a significant difference between a headline that reads, "Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab" and "Critics say Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab". But both titles are sensational click-bait.
- ipsin 11y agoI agree with you (such_a_casual). I think my judgement was skewed because I'm one of those critics.
- tptacek 11y agoIt's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.
- thieving_magpie 11y agoOne quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print. Seems fair game to me.
- tptacek 11y agoIt's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait. People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else. In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.
- thieving_magpie 11y agoI see what you're saying, I was wrong about using the subheading for the title instead of the title. Your statement that the OP was "overtly dishonest" is ridiculous, come on.