3 ms·
Removing the most curious portion of the video from the headline is not optimizing for intellectual curiosity. I shouldn't have to dive into a half hour long vi
by 7e 2y ago
Removing the most curious portion of the video from the headline is not optimizing for intellectual curiosity. I shouldn't have to dive into a half hour long video to get the lede. This is outright censorship, which you're hiding behind a fig leaf, to protect Altman.
Ironically, the original headline piqued my curiosity enough to watch the video, and I wasn’t going to before. So censoring the headline probably resulted in fewer views of the video by HN readers, not more.
- dang 2y agoIt may pique social curiosity but I don't think "$Celebrity1 delivers sensational one-liner praising $Celebrity2 for firing $Celebrity3 in well-known $CelebrityEpisode" is satisfying anyone's intellectual curiosity. The distinction between those two kinds of curiosity is central to how we run HN. Fair minded readers who look seriously at HN threads on the topic wouldn't say that we "protect Altman". Countless such threads have spent long hours on HN's front page, and the comments are dominated by vitriol. Actually, we moderate those threads somewhat less than we normally would.