4 ms·

Rather editorialized title ...

ck2 15y ago
It's 100% fact? 1. The Patriot Act specifically removes rights due to a declared emergency. 2. It's now extended to 14 years total. Which part is opinion?
- jackowayed 15y ago
  Well, editorialized may not be the best term, but you submitted with a title different from the title of the source with information that was not in the source. If you want to make that point, you should submit with the original title and then comment with the additional related information that you think is constructive to the conversation about the source.
  - dexen 15y ago
    The title is concisely introducing the article -- and I'm glad it is, for the original title would probably escape my attention. IMHO in this case the altered title is an advantage. From HN Guidelines: > You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it.
    - jackowayed 15y ago
      But I read the whole article and I still don't actually know what this state of emergency is. Does just having the USA PATRIOT Act mean that we're in a state of emergency? If so, is that something the bill actually says, or you interpreting that the bill is so extreme that it only makes sense in a state of emergency? Or are there provisions in it that are only ok if someone declares that we're in a state of emergency, and we've been in one ever since it passed? (Which still wouldn't be 14 years. If that's the case, then you don't know that someone won't declare that we're not in that state of emergency before the bill expires) Anyway, if the fact that I read your title means that I am more confused after reading the article than I would have been with the normal title, it is a bad title that does not fit the article. (all the you's are to the submitter) Edit: Also, the title is false. It hasn't actually been extended yet, it's just heading in that direction.
      - ck2 15y ago
        You are correct to be confused about what "emergency". That's the point, the Patriot Act specifically invented one so they could increase domestic spying by several orders of magnitude and zap away rights - all without warrants. It's the only way they could have such crazy anti-constitutional powers. Since people can still shop at the mall while we are at war, people don't realize we are in a declared state of emergency. People often forget that PATRIOT is an acronym and implies a declared emergency (against "terrorism"). It doesn't actually mean you are only a "patriot" if you support the bill but was designed to feel that way.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Zev 15y ago
  You can mislead people with facts by presenting them in different ways. The current title all but forces people to make up their minds before they read the article. The original title is much less biased and serves to let people draw their own conclusion after reading the article and having all of the facts. How would you feel if someone else submitted this instead, titled Support for the Patriot Act Weakening Among Republicans? If you read the article, you would know that this is also true.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Yeah, Mike Pence actually stood against permanent extension of part of the act - he's my "representative" and this is the first time to my knowledge he's ever done anything at all I approve of.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      In fact, I've just emailed him telling him that. Gotta throw these people the occasional bone.
gcb 15y ago
removing euphemism and cutting to the chase is a feature, not a bug.
- ericd 15y ago
  Not if it puts its readers on a different chase than the article.

ck2 15y ago

It's 100% fact? 1. The Patriot Act specifically removes rights due to a declared emergency. 2. It's now extended to 14 years total. Which part is opinion?

jackowayed 15y ago
Well, editorialized may not be the best term, but you submitted with a title different from the title of the source with information that was not in the source. If you want to make that point, you should submit with the original title and then comment with the additional related information that you think is constructive to the conversation about the source.
- dexen 15y ago
  The title is concisely introducing the article -- and I'm glad it is, for the original title would probably escape my attention. IMHO in this case the altered title is an advantage. From HN Guidelines: > You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it.
  - jackowayed 15y ago
    But I read the whole article and I still don't actually know what this state of emergency is. Does just having the USA PATRIOT Act mean that we're in a state of emergency? If so, is that something the bill actually says, or you interpreting that the bill is so extreme that it only makes sense in a state of emergency? Or are there provisions in it that are only ok if someone declares that we're in a state of emergency, and we've been in one ever since it passed? (Which still wouldn't be 14 years. If that's the case, then you don't know that someone won't declare that we're not in that state of emergency before the bill expires) Anyway, if the fact that I read your title means that I am more confused after reading the article than I would have been with the normal title, it is a bad title that does not fit the article. (all the you's are to the submitter) Edit: Also, the title is false. It hasn't actually been extended yet, it's just heading in that direction.
    - ck2 15y ago
      You are correct to be confused about what "emergency". That's the point, the Patriot Act specifically invented one so they could increase domestic spying by several orders of magnitude and zap away rights - all without warrants. It's the only way they could have such crazy anti-constitutional powers. Since people can still shop at the mall while we are at war, people don't realize we are in a declared state of emergency. People often forget that PATRIOT is an acronym and implies a declared emergency (against "terrorism"). It doesn't actually mean you are only a "patriot" if you support the bill but was designed to feel that way.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Zev 15y ago
You can mislead people with facts by presenting them in different ways. The current title all but forces people to make up their minds before they read the article. The original title is much less biased and serves to let people draw their own conclusion after reading the article and having all of the facts. How would you feel if someone else submitted this instead, titled Support for the Patriot Act Weakening Among Republicans? If you read the article, you would know that this is also true.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Yeah, Mike Pence actually stood against permanent extension of part of the act - he's my "representative" and this is the first time to my knowledge he's ever done anything at all I approve of.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    In fact, I've just emailed him telling him that. Gotta throw these people the occasional bone.

gcb 15y ago

removing euphemism and cutting to the chase is a feature, not a bug.

ericd 15y ago
Not if it puts its readers on a different chase than the article.