4 ms·
You read it as "highly editorialized" and as implying "some type of nefarious action" but that was entirely your own reading. I'm guessing that this "nefarious"
by SamBam 9y ago
You read it as "highly editorialized" and as implying "some type of nefarious action" but that was entirely your own reading. I'm guessing that this "nefarious" reading was your first impression, but recognize that it may not have been everyone's first impression.
Those of us who have head about the poor job Red Cross has been doing in the past few years saw from the headline that Facebook isn't using Red Cross, and interpreted it as exactly as the article intended: The Red Cross has faced intense scrutiny and criticism for its work in previous disasters, and FB decided not to use them.
- SirensOfTitan 9y agoThe original title was: > Facebook is steering users to donate to a small org no one has heard of ... which has quite an implication. I don't feel worried about: '[t]hose of us who have head about the poor job Red Cross has been doing,' but uneducated folks who just scanned this particular headline. One thing to clarify is that the original title looks like it was Buzzfeed's, not the submitter. And it seems like Buzzfeed realized at some point the original title was too inflammatory. I could have done a much better job at checking this and redirecting my ire elsewhere for sure.
- SamBam 9y agoAh. When I saw your comment, the HN headline was "Facebook is steering users to donate to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy," which is also different from BuzzFeed's current headline, so I assumed that's what you were talking about. "Facebook is steering users to donate to a small org no one has heard of" is a worse headline, I agree.