3 ms·

There are at least three things wrong or misleading about that original title, and possibly worth editing/flagging for: 1) it's missing the (2023) 2) it is/wa

by smcin 2y ago

There are at least three things wrong or misleading about that original title, and possibly worth editing/flagging for: 1) it's missing the (2023) 2) it is/was about the UK (the title omits that) 3) it was a (factually misleading) FB post from July 2023. Refusing cash in a [UK] shop is not an "offence". It may well be annoying customer policy, but not a criminal offence. The article itself says as much. So a more reasonable title would have been: "Is it legal for UK shops to refuse to accept cash? (2023)"

ColinWright 2y ago
I've fixed 1 and 2, but point 3 is the point of the article. It was in response to a misleading post ... much boosted/repeated and much liked ... claiming that it was illegal for shops to refuse cash. And in the past when I've tried to alter titles to be "more reasonable" they've been changed back, so I've given up trying to be helpful.
- smcin 2y ago
  Thanks. Yes the HN guidelines about using original titles, even when ragebait...
AmericanChopper 2y ago
I always thought that in a lot of places you can choose to only accept whatever payment methods you like, but you have to accept a cash payment for a debt.
- knodi123 2y ago
  That's correct. "Legal tender for all debts public and private." But that's only in the US.
  - AmericanChopper 2y ago
    I know for sure it’s in the US, but I’ve heard stories of people intentionally making a nuisance out of paying debts in cash in a lot of countries.
beardyw 2y ago
> it is/was about the UK (the title omits that) Wow. So do stories about the USA have to mention that too?
- smcin 2y ago
  Don't misrepresent me. Bad as it is for forums to assume default US context on anything, it's worse for a blog to title itself "Shops can refuse to take cash even though it’s legal tender..." then lead "A [15-month old] post on Facebook with over 300 shares claims..." about a debunked old claim from the UK that wasn't apparently made in any noteworthy way in the first place. Then commenters here jump in to disagree that it doesn't work that way in the US, which is doubly irrelevant. There is an incompatibility between title clarity and HN guidelines about keeping the original article title, and it gets worse the more vague or misleading that article title was (which is not the OP's fault). In such extreme cases we should probably editorialize the title with the missing bits to remove ambiguity. I haven't been active on HN too long but I believe this discussion has been revisited many times.

by smcin 2y ago

ColinWright 2y ago

I've fixed 1 and 2, but point 3 is the point of the article. It was in response to a misleading post ... much boosted/repeated and much liked ... claiming that it was illegal for shops to refuse cash. And in the past when I've tried to alter titles to be "more reasonable" they've been changed back, so I've given up trying to be helpful.

smcin 2y ago
Thanks. Yes the HN guidelines about using original titles, even when ragebait...

AmericanChopper 2y ago

I always thought that in a lot of places you can choose to only accept whatever payment methods you like, but you have to accept a cash payment for a debt.

knodi123 2y ago
That's correct. "Legal tender for all debts public and private." But that's only in the US.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  I know for sure it’s in the US, but I’ve heard stories of people intentionally making a nuisance out of paying debts in cash in a lot of countries.

beardyw 2y ago

> it is/was about the UK (the title omits that) Wow. So do stories about the USA have to mention that too?

smcin 2y ago
Don't misrepresent me. Bad as it is for forums to assume default US context on anything, it's worse for a blog to title itself "Shops can refuse to take cash even though it’s legal tender..." then lead "A [15-month old] post on Facebook with over 300 shares claims..." about a debunked old claim from the UK that wasn't apparently made in any noteworthy way in the first place. Then commenters here jump in to disagree that it doesn't work that way in the US, which is doubly irrelevant. There is an incompatibility between title clarity and HN guidelines about keeping the original article title, and it gets worse the more vague or misleading that article title was (which is not the OP's fault). In such extreme cases we should probably editorialize the title with the missing bits to remove ambiguity. I haven't been active on HN too long but I believe this discussion has been revisited many times.