3 ms·

The HN title is sensationalist considering the length of the article and other points of discussion. The full quote is: "I also think there's a lot of potentia

by jjoe 11y ago

The HN title is sensationalist considering the length of the article and other points of discussion. The full quote is: "I also think there's a lot of potential for premium or subscription or even user-paid content. Some sort of paywall or membership." It's unfair IMO.

leereeves 11y ago
In context: "We're building monetisation into the product right now," says Williams, predicting a roll-out of the features within a month or so. "We're not limiting ourselves to advertising," he says, stressing that Medium won't become a mess of banner ads but instead "sponsored" content. "I also think there's a lot of potential for premium or subscription or even user-paid content. Some sort of paywall or membership." Sounds like sponsored content is the works right now, and paywalls are being considered.
pmlnr 11y ago
> title is sensationalist Yep, on purpose. The original title is misleading as well, presenting medium from a false view.
- dang 11y ago
  > Yep, on purpose That's an abuse of HN. We take submission privileges away from accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. The site guidelines ask you to change the original title when it is misleading or linkbait, but not by turning it into a sensational opinion piece. Cherry-picking a single detail at the expense of all the others is editorializing. Moreover your title went way beyond what that detail in the article justifies. All of this is what the HN guidelines try to prevent. I'm not sure I agree that the original title was misleading, but even if it was, the replacement must be accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the article. If you have a tendentious point to make, you need to make it via a comment in the thread, on a level playing field with every other user.
fgandiya 11y ago
Plus, they discussed a whole lot of other things which were rather interesting.
dang 11y ago
Completely unfair, so much so that I don't think restoring the original title and unflagging this thread is a good idea. Perhaps someone else can repost the article and start an un-skewed discussion about it.

by jjoe 11y ago

leereeves 11y ago

In context: "We're building monetisation into the product right now," says Williams, predicting a roll-out of the features within a month or so. "We're not limiting ourselves to advertising," he says, stressing that Medium won't become a mess of banner ads but instead "sponsored" content. "I also think there's a lot of potential for premium or subscription or even user-paid content. Some sort of paywall or membership." Sounds like sponsored content is the works right now, and paywalls are being considered.

pmlnr 11y ago

> title is sensationalist Yep, on purpose. The original title is misleading as well, presenting medium from a false view.

dang 11y ago
> Yep, on purpose That's an abuse of HN. We take submission privileges away from accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. The site guidelines ask you to change the original title when it is misleading or linkbait, but not by turning it into a sensational opinion piece. Cherry-picking a single detail at the expense of all the others is editorializing. Moreover your title went way beyond what that detail in the article justifies. All of this is what the HN guidelines try to prevent. I'm not sure I agree that the original title was misleading, but even if it was, the replacement must be accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the article. If you have a tendentious point to make, you need to make it via a comment in the thread, on a level playing field with every other user.

fgandiya 11y ago

Plus, they discussed a whole lot of other things which were rather interesting.

dang 11y ago

Completely unfair, so much so that I don't think restoring the original title and unflagging this thread is a good idea. Perhaps someone else can repost the article and start an un-skewed discussion about it.