4 ms·
So does Wired and other news sites. https://www.wired.com/robots.txt https://www.wired.com/robots.txt It's concerning someone working for the news doesn't und
by aaron695 6y ago
So does Wired and other news sites.
https://www.wired.com/robots.txt https://www.wired.com/robots.txt
It's concerning someone working for the news doesn't understand why.
This is their power of ruining lives forever.
This is a new thing, it should be taught, it's not hard to understand.
I don't know why journalist think they deserve respect when these things are not fundamentally in their ethos.
There should be a better process than robot.txt and some news sites are doing better. Europe has brought in laws. But if journalist want to be thought of as more than writing blog spam, they need a better answer to this.
- michaelmrose 6y agoIf he is innocent it should be sufficient to anmend the article so it shows the truth.
- DangerousPie 6y agoIf you Google a job applicant's name and find several articles reporting that they have been accused of rape (with just a little note at the end that the charges have been dismissed), are you really going to give them a fair chance? I don't think anyone would look at them in an unbiased way, even if they tried to.
- michaelmrose 6y agoWhy does it need to be a little note at the end. Change the title to so and so cleared of charges of rape if its so and yes I would give them a fair chance. What is the alternative? I do not know anything about the particular case and make no claims about it but suppose the charges were dropped for political reasons or because the victim was intimidated? Shall we in such scenarios silence them entirely in order to protect a criminal?
- curt15 6y agoShould Wired simply be required by law to delete the articles?
- koheripbal 6y agoAt some point they'll probably figure out they can charge money to hide articles.