3 ms·
Ya, you can usually make arguments about how clickbait or sensationalist headlines are "accurate" as long as they contain seeds of fact, but that hardly makes t
by mythrwy 10y ago
Ya, you can usually make arguments about how clickbait or sensationalist headlines are "accurate" as long as they contain seeds of fact, but that hardly makes them any less clickbaitish nor representative of the objective facts as a whole.
- epistasis 10y agoSo, in totality, the true clickbait here is the Washington Examiner article, the one that you provided. The source that you were complaining about, is in this instance at least, accurate and representative of the whole. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but this thread has painted a pretty clear picture to me at least.
- mythrwy 10y agoI think HN mods may have changed headline to a more reasonable one (or maybe they didn't) but lets contrast the reasonable HN headline (US Senate votes to undo FCC internet privacy rules) with the more alarmist Washington Post version (The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy). I mean, OMG, these privacy rules were Landmark. And now they are Undone. And it's YOUR privacy that is gone. OMG OMG OMG your ISP is going to start spying on you Right Now! Guaranteed per the headline. Look, I don't agree with this action by the Senate either as I read about it. I just am opposed to clickbait headlines from Washington Post and feel they go a bit far and it's worth looking into the claims and implications they make rather than taking them at face value. And they have been getting a bit carried away with this type of thing and sometimes don't present a very accurate picture. That's all. As far as the thread painting a clear picture it does for me as well. The picture I get is that otherwise intelligent people are forgiving when sensationalism and clickbait support an ideology they uphold.