3 ms·

> a strong indication that devices belonging to him have been hacked in recent years. I like these kind of speculative articles. The click bait title states so

> a strong indication that devices belonging to him have been hacked in recent years. I like these kind of speculative articles. The click bait title states something with certanity than the first sentence clarifies that it is a speculation. I am not sure why we are falling for this click baity garbage, over and over.

worldsayshi 1y ago
> I am not sure why we are falling for this click baity garbage, over and over. Because it's easier to create and broadcast bait than to filter it.
- bmacho 1y ago
  Until HN improves, I propose that we flag moronic titles (misleading, clickbait, just annoyingly moronic, and so on). In the long term HN should do something about it, e.g. editoralized titles.
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    This is something that already happens. When there is a strong general opinion questioning the quality of the title, even if it's the same as the original title, if it's against HN directives they do get changed. Unfortunately I don't remember exactly these cases, but if you've been to HN long enough you've surely seen these changes.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    I've updated the title to something less sensationalist and more representative of the article's content. HN does have a policy of using the original title from the submitted article, unless it is misleading or linkbait, and we try to be rigorous in enforcing it. Users can help us by emailing us (hn@ycombinator.com) when they see a case where a title seems to be misleading or linkbait.
aweiher 1y ago
The first sentence is actually: > Login credentials belonging to an employee at both the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Department of Government Efficiency have appeared in multiple public leaks from info-stealer malware Does not sound like clickbait for me.
- cma 1y ago
  Yep, headline doesn't say it is his current computer or anything, just that his computer was infected. It would be clickbait if it said his current computer is actively infected. Less clickbait than now if it said one of his computers appears to have been infected at some point.
  - krick 1y ago
    Cannot tell if it's sarcasm or not. Obviously everyone who reads the headline assumes it's his current computer, and it had some, uh, consequences. That's why they click. That's what makes it clickbait. Nobody would care otherwise. (Also, if you are willing to be pointlessly formal, it goes in both directions, since it can be argued that a computer, which belongs to a person, who in the future will become DOGE's software engineer, but hasn't become yet, also formally isn't a "DOGE software engineer’s computer".)
    - poincaredisk 1y ago
      >Nobody would care otherwise. As long as it's a work computer, what does it matter if it's his current computer or not? Remember that we're talking about an infostealer, it got his credentials and "that's it" (that's gravely serious).
      - roenxi 1y ago
        Wouldn't the assumption be that some percentage of government workers have infostealers on their computers? The track record of these people is not good, pretty much since we've had the internet there have been a steady stream of minor-to-moderate scandals where information gets to places that it shouldn't be. This might just be selection bias because there is a large crowd of angry people looking for things to fling at DOGE.
AdamN 1y ago
Doesn't seem speculative in the least - they have some pretty strong indicators of a problem. It's great that we're getting some tech-literate investigative journalism going - and good for our government to have a light shining here.
trelane 1y ago
[flagged]
- CoastalCoder 1y ago
  I oppose corruption and treason regardless of party affiliation.
  - trelane 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - CoastalCoder 1y ago
      If the facts support those allegations, then absolutely yes.
      - trelane 1y ago
        > If the facts support those allegations, then absolutely yes See, here's the thing: almost everyone believes this about themselves. There is always enough difference between any given pairing of cases that one can retain their belief in their own fairness. And there is no shortage of partisan coverage that will assist you in believing that the cases are different. And it's not like there is an incentive for holding _your own side_ accountable when the other side is not being held accountable.
        CoastalCoder 1y ago
        I get the impression that you think every American voter, including me, is partisan and a party loyalist. I won't bother trying to persuade you otherwise, beyond saying that my voting record and public comments refute that.
        trelane 1y ago
        Not every, but way too many. If you're truly one of the few, congrats. I've seen the chairs switch way too many times to be anything but cynical.

worldsayshi 1y ago

> I am not sure why we are falling for this click baity garbage, over and over. Because it's easier to create and broadcast bait than to filter it.

bmacho 1y ago
Until HN improves, I propose that we flag moronic titles (misleading, clickbait, just annoyingly moronic, and so on). In the long term HN should do something about it, e.g. editoralized titles.
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  This is something that already happens. When there is a strong general opinion questioning the quality of the title, even if it's the same as the original title, if it's against HN directives they do get changed. Unfortunately I don't remember exactly these cases, but if you've been to HN long enough you've surely seen these changes.
- tomhow 1y ago
  I've updated the title to something less sensationalist and more representative of the article's content. HN does have a policy of using the original title from the submitted article, unless it is misleading or linkbait, and we try to be rigorous in enforcing it. Users can help us by emailing us (hn@ycombinator.com) when they see a case where a title seems to be misleading or linkbait.

aweiher 1y ago

The first sentence is actually: > Login credentials belonging to an employee at both the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Department of Government Efficiency have appeared in multiple public leaks from info-stealer malware Does not sound like clickbait for me.

cma 1y ago
Yep, headline doesn't say it is his current computer or anything, just that his computer was infected. It would be clickbait if it said his current computer is actively infected. Less clickbait than now if it said one of his computers appears to have been infected at some point.
- krick 1y ago
  Cannot tell if it's sarcasm or not. Obviously everyone who reads the headline assumes it's his current computer, and it had some, uh, consequences. That's why they click. That's what makes it clickbait. Nobody would care otherwise. (Also, if you are willing to be pointlessly formal, it goes in both directions, since it can be argued that a computer, which belongs to a person, who in the future will become DOGE's software engineer, but hasn't become yet, also formally isn't a "DOGE software engineer’s computer".)
  - poincaredisk 1y ago
    >Nobody would care otherwise. As long as it's a work computer, what does it matter if it's his current computer or not? Remember that we're talking about an infostealer, it got his credentials and "that's it" (that's gravely serious).
    - roenxi 1y ago
      Wouldn't the assumption be that some percentage of government workers have infostealers on their computers? The track record of these people is not good, pretty much since we've had the internet there have been a steady stream of minor-to-moderate scandals where information gets to places that it shouldn't be. This might just be selection bias because there is a large crowd of angry people looking for things to fling at DOGE.

AdamN 1y ago

Doesn't seem speculative in the least - they have some pretty strong indicators of a problem. It's great that we're getting some tech-literate investigative journalism going - and good for our government to have a light shining here.

trelane 1y ago

[flagged]

CoastalCoder 1y ago
I oppose corruption and treason regardless of party affiliation.
- trelane 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - CoastalCoder 1y ago
    If the facts support those allegations, then absolutely yes.
    - trelane 1y ago
      > If the facts support those allegations, then absolutely yes See, here's the thing: almost everyone believes this about themselves. There is always enough difference between any given pairing of cases that one can retain their belief in their own fairness. And there is no shortage of partisan coverage that will assist you in believing that the cases are different. And it's not like there is an incentive for holding _your own side_ accountable when the other side is not being held accountable.
      - CoastalCoder 1y ago
        I get the impression that you think every American voter, including me, is partisan and a party loyalist. I won't bother trying to persuade you otherwise, beyond saying that my voting record and public comments refute that.
        trelane 1y ago
        Not every, but way too many. If you're truly one of the few, congrats. I've seen the chairs switch way too many times to be anything but cynical.