4 ms·

Why can't these news articles link to the briefs or provide a case number or anything? They didn't even say what freakin' court they were in directly! I know it

by xxpor 7y ago

Why can't these news articles link to the briefs or provide a case number or anything? They didn't even say what freakin' court they were in directly! I know it's the 9th circuit based on the description, but where was the original case heard? Arg! Edit: Fortunatly the 9th circuit is actually pretty good with youtube, which made this easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6SeGJQjqyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6SeGJQjqyA 19-15472 ACLU Foundation v. USDOJ

giancarlostoro 7y ago
It doesnt seize to amaze me why news orgs dont provide sources in addition to claiming another org claimed it first. In the hype about trying to be real news maybe you should take it much more seriously. I can prolly find independent researchers who arent part of huge news orgs who do link to sources.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  It's surprising that partisan tabloids (Breitbart, Daily Beast, etc) provide clickable hyperlinks to the original reporting and source documents more often than major media outlets do. Maybe it's due to their reblog origins, they're less afraid of losing traffic to competitors? Or because of their reputation they have more to prove? Regardless, it should be done by everyone.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    > partisan tabloids ... major media outlets Don't buy into the propaganda. Most major media outlets are partisan as well. Sometimes the party is simply the 'increase state authority and support war' party, they simply color it red or blue for your personal preferences.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      Not sure why people are downvoting you as if you're attacking their news source, at least here in America I can name two news orgs for which people would easily agree lean on opposite ends: Fox and CNN. The difference in their focus is night and day when you think of how they report on the President. It is astounding. Then there's the lack of following up on sources like the MAGA high schoolers media fiasco.
      - drak0n1c 7y ago
        Regardless of how right or wrong he is, it's a digression into partisan-ness unrelated to the topic of hyperlinking practices. HN tends to downvote when that happens.
  - xxpor 7y ago
    I honestly have to wonder if in this case it's because the article is designed to be primarily viewed on Bloomberg Terminals, and the website is secondary.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  It's almost like they want you to depend on the news orgs for... the thing they're selling you (or, the thing they're giving you for free because you're the product).
- lioeters 7y ago
  Grammar tip: seize -> cease. The latter basically means "stop". Similar expression: "It never fails to amaze me".
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
My beef is articles about patent infringement issues that don't cite patent numbers. The storage and transmission costs of text data are essentially free (they burn more on javascript bloat) and such information could be excluded for publications that still have dead tree editions.
rand_r 7y ago
It somewhat makes sense for articles to be vague. As frustrating as it is when you want to go deep on a story, these articles are not providing a knowledge graph service. They’re condensing a story down to only the most important information. In effect, providing a summarization service for real-world events. When it works well, it lets you efficiently absorb the gist of a story. Of course, it’s a bit of a subjective art and unable to serve all audiences.
- xxpor 7y ago
  That was true in the newspaper era. Now that we're in the web era, they can do both. They could have improved the article immensely without changing any of the prose, while adding links to the underlying documents. WaPo and the NYT do this regularly. Don't forget the power of hypertext :)
  - jiveturkey 7y ago
    that would be a lot more expensive

by xxpor 7y ago

giancarlostoro 7y ago

It doesnt seize to amaze me why news orgs dont provide sources in addition to claiming another org claimed it first. In the hype about trying to be real news maybe you should take it much more seriously. I can prolly find independent researchers who arent part of huge news orgs who do link to sources.

drak0n1c 7y ago
It's surprising that partisan tabloids (Breitbart, Daily Beast, etc) provide clickable hyperlinks to the original reporting and source documents more often than major media outlets do. Maybe it's due to their reblog origins, they're less afraid of losing traffic to competitors? Or because of their reputation they have more to prove? Regardless, it should be done by everyone.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > partisan tabloids ... major media outlets Don't buy into the propaganda. Most major media outlets are partisan as well. Sometimes the party is simply the 'increase state authority and support war' party, they simply color it red or blue for your personal preferences.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    Not sure why people are downvoting you as if you're attacking their news source, at least here in America I can name two news orgs for which people would easily agree lean on opposite ends: Fox and CNN. The difference in their focus is night and day when you think of how they report on the President. It is astounding. Then there's the lack of following up on sources like the MAGA high schoolers media fiasco.
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      Regardless of how right or wrong he is, it's a digression into partisan-ness unrelated to the topic of hyperlinking practices. HN tends to downvote when that happens.
- xxpor 7y ago
  I honestly have to wonder if in this case it's because the article is designed to be primarily viewed on Bloomberg Terminals, and the website is secondary.
cryptonector 7y ago
It's almost like they want you to depend on the news orgs for... the thing they're selling you (or, the thing they're giving you for free because you're the product).
lioeters 7y ago
Grammar tip: seize -> cease. The latter basically means "stop". Similar expression: "It never fails to amaze me".

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

My beef is articles about patent infringement issues that don't cite patent numbers. The storage and transmission costs of text data are essentially free (they burn more on javascript bloat) and such information could be excluded for publications that still have dead tree editions.

rand_r 7y ago

It somewhat makes sense for articles to be vague. As frustrating as it is when you want to go deep on a story, these articles are not providing a knowledge graph service. They’re condensing a story down to only the most important information. In effect, providing a summarization service for real-world events. When it works well, it lets you efficiently absorb the gist of a story. Of course, it’s a bit of a subjective art and unable to serve all audiences.

xxpor 7y ago
That was true in the newspaper era. Now that we're in the web era, they can do both. They could have improved the article immensely without changing any of the prose, while adding links to the underlying documents. WaPo and the NYT do this regularly. Don't forget the power of hypertext :)
- jiveturkey 7y ago
  that would be a lot more expensive