4 ms·
Yes, we have an ongoing problem with HN guidelines requiring us to use the original headline even if it's misleading and/or needs some editorializing. Better wo
by smcin 2y ago
Yes, we have an ongoing problem with HN guidelines requiring us to use the original headline even if it's misleading and/or needs some editorializing. Better would be:
"IG to automatically put teens into private accounts with increased restrictions and parental controls" (the full original title) or even:
"IG to automatically infer teens' age and assign them private accounts with increased restrictions and parental controls" (slightly editorialized full original title, emphasizes the "automatically infer age" part over the "even if they're lying" part)
Second, the proposed rollout is only immediate for new accounts not existing accounts, however, those will only be processed next year.
- quantified 2y agoNeeding to trim the title forces unfortunate tradeoffs. No editorializing, I mostly agree with due to drawbacks of opinionation in a large group.
- smcin 2y agoBut not even 'editorializing' where that is not injecting opinion, but simply correcting a misleading headline (as in this case)? (I only used the word 'editorializing' in this broader sense that HN people do. They key part of this particular story that was lost is that Meta/IG will use AI to infer users' age, specifically to detect when they are under-18. Thus "automatically infer age" part over the "even if they're lying" part seems an objectively better fixed headline.)