4 ms·

I'd agree that Schneier has made the best arguments and conclusively won the debate. But that's still no reason for editorializing - the comments are the best p

by omh 15y ago

I'd agree that Schneier has made the best arguments and conclusively won the debate. But that's still no reason for editorializing - the comments are the best place for that.

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
If you click "Vote now or add your view", you find that 87% of the debate observers were convinced by Schneier. I believe that counts as an ass handing.
- ewillbefull 15y ago
  It's the difference between a Hacker News that tells you how to feel about an issue, and a Hacker News that assumes you're a big boy and can generate your own opinion. When linking to a source material it's best to stay neutral.
  - njharman 15y ago
    I don't see how title is telling me what to think. It's using interesting language. Artistic license != editorializing. If title had made some opinion on the facts, such as Schneinr is right, or made up something not in article, tsa stooge is an asshat. That would be editorializing. I would hate it hn was reduced to "let's not offend anyone, groupthink" titles. Like "link to article." People submit articles, they get to and should add their personality to the title. Otherwise why even have them, just suck title from page.
- Toucan 15y ago
  It doesn't mean that any debate observers were convinced by Schneier. It just means they agree with the motion. In order to see who was convinced, you'd need those polled to have given their opinion before the debate and after, to calculate any change in opinion.
Estragon 15y ago
Since you agree that the factual assertion in the title is correct, what exactly do you mean when you accuse it of editorializing?
- JadeNB 15y ago
  Editorialising is not making false statements; it is making value judgements. EDIT: I wanted to clarify a bit more the distinction I mean to draw between 'factual' and 'true'. "Schneier hands former TSA boss his ass" is (for a reasonable definition of the terms) 'true', but so, presumably, is "Former TSA boss attempts to spread message in an unsympathetic forum". I would call both versions true but editorial ('editorialistic'?); whereas I would call something like "87% of people polled disagree with former TSA boss on security measures" factual.

by omh 15y ago

I'd agree that Schneier has made the best arguments and conclusively won the debate. But that's still no reason for editorializing - the comments are the best place for that.

Daniel_Newby 15y ago

If you click "Vote now or add your view", you find that 87% of the debate observers were convinced by Schneier. I believe that counts as an ass handing.

ewillbefull 15y ago
It's the difference between a Hacker News that tells you how to feel about an issue, and a Hacker News that assumes you're a big boy and can generate your own opinion. When linking to a source material it's best to stay neutral.
- njharman 15y ago
  I don't see how title is telling me what to think. It's using interesting language. Artistic license != editorializing. If title had made some opinion on the facts, such as Schneinr is right, or made up something not in article, tsa stooge is an asshat. That would be editorializing. I would hate it hn was reduced to "let's not offend anyone, groupthink" titles. Like "link to article." People submit articles, they get to and should add their personality to the title. Otherwise why even have them, just suck title from page.
Toucan 15y ago
It doesn't mean that any debate observers were convinced by Schneier. It just means they agree with the motion. In order to see who was convinced, you'd need those polled to have given their opinion before the debate and after, to calculate any change in opinion.

Estragon 15y ago

Since you agree that the factual assertion in the title is correct, what exactly do you mean when you accuse it of editorializing?

JadeNB 15y ago
Editorialising is not making false statements; it is making value judgements. EDIT: I wanted to clarify a bit more the distinction I mean to draw between 'factual' and 'true'. "Schneier hands former TSA boss his ass" is (for a reasonable definition of the terms) 'true', but so, presumably, is "Former TSA boss attempts to spread message in an unsympathetic forum". I would call both versions true but editorial ('editorialistic'?); whereas I would call something like "87% of people polled disagree with former TSA boss on security measures" factual.