5 ms·
dang has said that HN doesn't outright ban TV news sites like CNN, despite being against the guidelines[0], because they do occasionally surface interesting sto
by dpifke 4y ago
dang has said that HN doesn't outright ban TV news sites like CNN, despite being against the guidelines[0], because they do occasionally surface interesting stories.
But every example of that I've seen has essentially been blogspam that is better covered by primary sources instead. I really wish he'd reconsider.
[0] "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wheybags 4y agoThat particular guideline seems to have informally expired. Normal news gets to the front page all the time. See, for example, the thread on the death of the queen. Hardly related to tech, startups, or even intellectual gratification.
- SQueeeeeL 4y agoI feel like it just gets waived every once in a while when the news is appropriately "important". The death of a monarch in a western nation essentially hits all the criteria of becoming massive media fodder.
- pessimizer 4y agoI'm pretty sure the only thing that's interesting to talk about when the Queen dies is if this is a perfect time to get rid of the monarchy, and dang said that's too 17th century to talk about. Without that conversation, IMO what's happening in the lives of kings, queens, princes, and princesses is also too 17th century to talk about.
- tsimionescu 4y agoWhile I'm all for a Cromwell II to this Charles III, I don't think it's fair to say that there are no other interesting things to talk when such a long-lived world leader (even though she was mostly a figurehead) dies. It's natural to want to look back and contemplate, and even just reminisce, about how the world has changed under her. A discussion can be interesting without being a debate.