4 ms·
While I completely agree that the headline used on HN is a bad one, I'd argue that this is a case where the guideline of keeping the original headline is a poor
by corin_ 14y ago
While I completely agree that the headline used on HN is a bad one, I'd argue that this is a case where the guideline of keeping the original headline is a poor one.
"Google and Facebook's new tactic in the tech wars" is far too vague to be at all useful - the problem is that, when you go against this HN guideline, how do you pick a good replacement without making the same mistake we've seen here?
- greenyoda 14y agoA good replacement would be a concise summary of the main point of the article. Maybe something like: "Google, Facebook chose EFF as recipient of unreported court-ordered donations" (77 characters)
- corin_ 14y agoI wasn't so much saying that this one is impossible to pick one, more just how do you confirm that it's a good headline. For example the original OP of this submission probably didn't write their headline and think "well this misrepresents the story, but fuck it".