4 ms·
It has an editorialised title, it doesn’t explain what this is really about. It’s basically click bait. It’s either an ad for human loop or an ad for your podc
by onethought 3y ago
It has an editorialised title, it doesn’t explain what this is really about. It’s basically click bait.
It’s either an ad for human loop or an ad for your podcast.
It’s not meant to be hurtful, it’s just the truth. If the title was instead more descriptive of what the content was. You wouldn’t get the cynicism.
- swyx 3y agoas mentioned by @htk above - it links to the exact section of the essay, with that exact title, i wanted to offer for HN interest because it directly addresses active conversation topics that have been here before, which i know from myself being a longtime community member.
- onethought 3y agoI see, so anchor tagging a clickbait piece of text within an article makes it not clickbait? Sorry, while I don’t like hurt feelings and I feel bad if that is the case. And I believe you are being genuine. I think it’s still something a bit off here.
- true_religion 3y agoThe argument wasn’t over it being clickbait. It was claimed that this is an advertisement (it being paid is implied). The NY Times uses blatant clickbait, but I still respect them as real journalism and not just rewritten PR ad pieces producers.
- onethought 3y agoSorry I don’t draw a distinction here. Clickbaiting is an advertising technique. This was advertising the author/affiliate. The main point isn’t wasn’t about the content (for me). Agree I guess there is a borderline where the title is both compelling to click, but still informative of what the overall article is. That wasn’t the case here. NYT does this better, agree.