3 ms·

> needless to say the title was edited... Congrats on spotting the danger early. Still, I support editing the title back to the original. Avoiding editorialise

by thih9 5y ago

> needless to say the title was edited... Congrats on spotting the danger early. Still, I support editing the title back to the original. Avoiding editorialised titles is important, it means that opinions are shared in comments and it's easier to have a neutral discussion. Back then you were right about the purchase but it seems that you weren't able to get your point across to the others; I wish people listened more and I also wish you talked more.

taurath 5y ago
I’m in the camp of whatever title seems less biased and more directly describes what is happening should win out. As someone with only a passing interest in freenode which I used to use but no longer do, learning they were bought is much more relevant than the implication they formed a partnership. I understand that there is grey area over whether they were “bought”, but a partnership doesn’t seem to cover what went down in any way.
- thih9 5y ago
  > a partnership doesn’t seem to cover what went down in any way True, but we only know that in hindsight. At the time the claim about acquisition was disputed [1] [2]. If somebody replied with information about voting rights [3] then perhaps the "joining forces" title would have been treated as misleading and replaced with "purchased by". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102301 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102139 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207992
jasonzemos 5y ago
The title was edited only after the original propitiated the story into notoriety. The votes before and after the intervention therefor became in conflict. Hacker News aided in the spread of disinformation.

3 ms·

> needless to say the title was edited... Congrats on spotting the danger early. Still, I support editing the title back to the original. Avoiding editorialise

by thih9 5y ago

taurath 5y ago
I’m in the camp of whatever title seems less biased and more directly describes what is happening should win out. As someone with only a passing interest in freenode which I used to use but no longer do, learning they were bought is much more relevant than the implication they formed a partnership. I understand that there is grey area over whether they were “bought”, but a partnership doesn’t seem to cover what went down in any way.
- thih9 5y ago
  > a partnership doesn’t seem to cover what went down in any way True, but we only know that in hindsight. At the time the claim about acquisition was disputed [1] [2]. If somebody replied with information about voting rights [3] then perhaps the "joining forces" title would have been treated as misleading and replaced with "purchased by". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102301 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102139 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207992
jasonzemos 5y ago
The title was edited only after the original propitiated the story into notoriety. The votes before and after the intervention therefor became in conflict. Hacker News aided in the spread of disinformation.