5 ms·

Have you no standard for right and wrong other than "whatever is in one's own interest"?

by combatentropy 10y ago

ryandrake 10y ago
Sorry, I honestly don't see how the wording of a link title is a moral issue.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  How about if the title is trying to deceive me about the contents? Is lying a moral issue? How about if the title is manipulating me to try to get me to click on it in order to make money from me doing so, even though it's going to waste my time? Is that a moral issue?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  One example - while browsing, people read many more headlines than actual articles. If you follow a popular strategy of overemphasized or misleading headlines, you're essentially lying to people on mass scale. This is a real problem, because people end up remembering (and believing) the bullshit they read in a headline, without ever realizing that the actual article debunked that statement.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    A couple of opinions (while we're tossing opinions around): I think we're still conflating link titles and headlines--they serve different functions. Link titles exist to get you to click through to the article. I'd argue that they should not have misleading information in it, but they should be enticing, and specifically, they should NOT summarize the contents of the article (otherwise why would anyone even click through?) Headlines are the first thing you see when you do click through to an article, and should nicely summarize the article so you don't have to stay long on the page to get the gist of what it's about. Totally agree with you on not putting bullshit in a headline! As a reader I want a summary of the article so I don't need to stay long.
    - combatentropy 10y ago
      > we're still conflating link titles and headlines They're the same thing everywhere I go: Google News, Hacker News, newspaper websites, articles reposted on Facebook . . . Where are you going that they're different? > they should NOT summarize the contents of the article (otherwise why would anyone even click through?) For the details. If an article is interesting to me, I will click it. Won't you? - Arch Linux adopts systemd - More and more developers trying out Rust - Useful shell one-liners I would click each of these. They're a little vague, but I made them up in a hurry. Still, I my clickbait radar would not have gone off on any of them. There are three kinds of stories: 1) the kind I want to read in depth (like on programming or photography), 2) the kind I want to know usually just the gist (like the economy, politics, world news), and 3) the kind I don't even care to know the gist about (like some celebrity gossip, a diet fad that the writer already knows is ineffectual, etc.) I just want the headline to convey whether, after I read the whole article, I will think it was worth it. The problem with clickbait is that it arouses your curiosity for everything, but at the end you feel the same way you feel after eating candy.

Have you no standard for right and wrong other than "whatever is in one's own interest"?

ryandrake 10y ago

Sorry, I honestly don't see how the wording of a link title is a moral issue.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
How about if the title is trying to deceive me about the contents? Is lying a moral issue? How about if the title is manipulating me to try to get me to click on it in order to make money from me doing so, even though it's going to waste my time? Is that a moral issue?
TeMPOraL 10y ago
One example - while browsing, people read many more headlines than actual articles. If you follow a popular strategy of overemphasized or misleading headlines, you're essentially lying to people on mass scale. This is a real problem, because people end up remembering (and believing) the bullshit they read in a headline, without ever realizing that the actual article debunked that statement.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  A couple of opinions (while we're tossing opinions around): I think we're still conflating link titles and headlines--they serve different functions. Link titles exist to get you to click through to the article. I'd argue that they should not have misleading information in it, but they should be enticing, and specifically, they should NOT summarize the contents of the article (otherwise why would anyone even click through?) Headlines are the first thing you see when you do click through to an article, and should nicely summarize the article so you don't have to stay long on the page to get the gist of what it's about. Totally agree with you on not putting bullshit in a headline! As a reader I want a summary of the article so I don't need to stay long.
  - combatentropy 10y ago
    > we're still conflating link titles and headlines They're the same thing everywhere I go: Google News, Hacker News, newspaper websites, articles reposted on Facebook . . . Where are you going that they're different? > they should NOT summarize the contents of the article (otherwise why would anyone even click through?) For the details. If an article is interesting to me, I will click it. Won't you? - Arch Linux adopts systemd - More and more developers trying out Rust - Useful shell one-liners I would click each of these. They're a little vague, but I made them up in a hurry. Still, I my clickbait radar would not have gone off on any of them. There are three kinds of stories: 1) the kind I want to read in depth (like on programming or photography), 2) the kind I want to know usually just the gist (like the economy, politics, world news), and 3) the kind I don't even care to know the gist about (like some celebrity gossip, a diet fad that the writer already knows is ineffectual, etc.) I just want the headline to convey whether, after I read the whole article, I will think it was worth it. The problem with clickbait is that it arouses your curiosity for everything, but at the end you feel the same way you feel after eating candy.