3 ms·

I disagree with this editorialization. You have driven clicks away from the source website (content origin) over to a 3rd party entity running ads and writing t

I disagree with this editorialization. You have driven clicks away from the source website (content origin) over to a 3rd party entity running ads and writing their own narrative "Automattic pumps..."). uBlock has blocked 31 (actually, 38 and counting - dynamic while open - oops, up to 41 now) intrusive ads/trackers on your new link to a commercial website, and zero on the original link to the source of information. I do not want this as a reader and feel given the subject matter (privacy, e2e chats, etc.) that this move is not in the best interests of the people reading this link or article.

dang 6y ago
Generally we prefer original sources, of course (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), but corporate press releases are special in a bad way. They tend not to contain background or interesting detail. They are written in bland PR language that surely every intelligent reader finds gross. (I'm by no means saying that media articles are great, but PR language is truly the bottom of the barrel.) Whatever is interesting in a new development, they often obscure. They lead to more generic discussion, which is worse discussion for HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20discussion&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). So they're more or less deprecated here. I hear you about the ads etc. and agree in principle, but it's a separate issue. That's how media work right now. We may not like it but it doesn't mean we should bite our nose off to spite them. Btw, it's possible that I made the wrong call in this case. I didn't look closely either at the PR release or at the TC article—I just skimmed them. But the above is the heuristic we use, and I'm pretty sure it's the right one for HN.
- pvg 6y ago
  The heuristic worked and the TC article provides a lot more background and context about this deal. It's not a close (never mind wrong) call in this particular case.
- Arathorn 6y ago
  I think the confusion might be my fault in this instance, as the author of the original Matrix.org blog post. The post wasn't a PR or written as a PR (and I hate PRs like the best of them)... but in retrospect I see that the headline and the banner image could make you think that it was. Hopefully the contents of the blogpost itself wasn't bland & gross tho :/ Ironically, the /actual/ PR for this was at the bottom of https://blog.vector.im/automattic-backs-matrix-investing-4-6m-in-new-vector/ https://blog.vector.im/automattic-backs-matrix-investing-4-6... - which indeed is bland PR language, intended to convey the bare facts to journos rather than actually be read by normal folk :)

dang 6y ago

Generally we prefer original sources, of course (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), but corporate press releases are special in a bad way. They tend not to contain background or interesting detail. They are written in bland PR language that surely every intelligent reader finds gross. (I'm by no means saying that media articles are great, but PR language is truly the bottom of the barrel.) Whatever is interesting in a new development, they often obscure. They lead to more generic discussion, which is worse discussion for HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20discussion&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). So they're more or less deprecated here. I hear you about the ads etc. and agree in principle, but it's a separate issue. That's how media work right now. We may not like it but it doesn't mean we should bite our nose off to spite them. Btw, it's possible that I made the wrong call in this case. I didn't look closely either at the PR release or at the TC article—I just skimmed them. But the above is the heuristic we use, and I'm pretty sure it's the right one for HN.

pvg 6y ago
The heuristic worked and the TC article provides a lot more background and context about this deal. It's not a close (never mind wrong) call in this particular case.
Arathorn 6y ago
I think the confusion might be my fault in this instance, as the author of the original Matrix.org blog post. The post wasn't a PR or written as a PR (and I hate PRs like the best of them)... but in retrospect I see that the headline and the banner image could make you think that it was. Hopefully the contents of the blogpost itself wasn't bland & gross tho :/ Ironically, the /actual/ PR for this was at the bottom of https://blog.vector.im/automattic-backs-matrix-investing-4-6m-in-new-vector/ https://blog.vector.im/automattic-backs-matrix-investing-4-6... - which indeed is bland PR language, intended to convey the bare facts to journos rather than actually be read by normal folk :)