3 ms·

HN news mods are slowly becoming Slashdot mods with stories like this.

grzm 10y ago
Submissions are by HN members. The guidelines clearly state that the title should not be modified unless clearly link bait: [P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When the mods are aware that a title has been unnecessarily editorialized, from what I've observed they always update the title, either back to the original or to something conforming to the guidelines in the case of egregiously bad original titles. If you see a title that's been editorialized, make a comment (as others have done here), and if it's something you feel particularly strongly about, contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer.
- lightedman 10y ago
  Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    To boot, on a prior subject - give me a font that works in BRAILLE for capitalization, please. Because most of the traffic which I direct to YOU is from BLIND PEOPLE - in which my ALL CAPS is the ONLY thing they can discern as NOTHING exists for italicization font-wise in that domain.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Going quite off-topic, I believe you're referring to this exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 Thanks for clarifying the context of the prior comment. I think this may be something you'd like to email the mods about (at hn@ycombinator.com). This isn't a domain I have any experience in. Back in the day, I read pieces on accessibility by Joe Clark[0] with interest, and had hoped by now the tech had reached a point where elements such as <i> would be interpreted by Braille devices. I'm sorry to hear that doesn't seem to be the case. [0]: http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ http://joeclark.org/weblogs/
  - grzm 10y ago
    Please bear with me, as I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you mean here. Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias? Or that the title submitted by 'jletroui, "Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart", includes obvious bias? If the former, I don't see that it's egregiously biased. It appears to be an accurate representation of what the author describes in the piece. It's definitely not biased enough to warrant changing the title. If the latter, I agree with the guidelines: the article title should stand unless it's clearly link bait, which I don't think this is. I think the modified title definitely editorializes and adds the bias of the submitter, which is definitely against the guidelines. As an aside, these aren't my guidelines any more than they are yours. They're the site guidelines.
    - lightedman 10y ago
      "Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias?" If you can't see the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS POLITICAL BIAS, then I think you've got problems you need to have checked.
      - grzm 10y ago
        It's clearly a political piece, written from a particular point of view, so in that sense you could consider the piece biased. The title accurately represents the intent of the piece. For the title to be biased in the sense that it requires modification would mean that it is in some way either misrepresenting the piece (i.e., click bait) or misrepresenting facts. "In Support of Free Speech" is doing neither. If you're of the opinion that that Shopify's stance is wrong, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the title of the piece is wrong or biased in a way that requires updating. Shopify's position is one where people disagree, as is abundantly clear from this (and similar) threads. At this point it's pretty clear we're at best talking past each other, and as there's not much else I have to say on this topic, I'll leave it at that.

grzm 10y ago

Submissions are by HN members. The guidelines clearly state that the title should not be modified unless clearly link bait: [P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When the mods are aware that a title has been unnecessarily editorialized, from what I've observed they always update the title, either back to the original or to something conforming to the guidelines in the case of egregiously bad original titles. If you see a title that's been editorialized, make a comment (as others have done here), and if it's something you feel particularly strongly about, contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer.

lightedman 10y ago
Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.
- lightedman 10y ago
  To boot, on a prior subject - give me a font that works in BRAILLE for capitalization, please. Because most of the traffic which I direct to YOU is from BLIND PEOPLE - in which my ALL CAPS is the ONLY thing they can discern as NOTHING exists for italicization font-wise in that domain.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Going quite off-topic, I believe you're referring to this exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 Thanks for clarifying the context of the prior comment. I think this may be something you'd like to email the mods about (at hn@ycombinator.com). This isn't a domain I have any experience in. Back in the day, I read pieces on accessibility by Joe Clark[0] with interest, and had hoped by now the tech had reached a point where elements such as <i> would be interpreted by Braille devices. I'm sorry to hear that doesn't seem to be the case. [0]: http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ http://joeclark.org/weblogs/
- grzm 10y ago
  Please bear with me, as I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you mean here. Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias? Or that the title submitted by 'jletroui, "Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart", includes obvious bias? If the former, I don't see that it's egregiously biased. It appears to be an accurate representation of what the author describes in the piece. It's definitely not biased enough to warrant changing the title. If the latter, I agree with the guidelines: the article title should stand unless it's clearly link bait, which I don't think this is. I think the modified title definitely editorializes and adds the bias of the submitter, which is definitely against the guidelines. As an aside, these aren't my guidelines any more than they are yours. They're the site guidelines.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    "Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias?" If you can't see the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS POLITICAL BIAS, then I think you've got problems you need to have checked.
    - grzm 10y ago
      It's clearly a political piece, written from a particular point of view, so in that sense you could consider the piece biased. The title accurately represents the intent of the piece. For the title to be biased in the sense that it requires modification would mean that it is in some way either misrepresenting the piece (i.e., click bait) or misrepresenting facts. "In Support of Free Speech" is doing neither. If you're of the opinion that that Shopify's stance is wrong, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the title of the piece is wrong or biased in a way that requires updating. Shopify's position is one where people disagree, as is abundantly clear from this (and similar) threads. At this point it's pretty clear we're at best talking past each other, and as there's not much else I have to say on this topic, I'll leave it at that.