3 ms·

I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill". Reading the article and the lin

I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill". Reading the article and the linked government statement, it sounds like the issue is that the company did receive permits to ship their equipment to one location in Greenland, and then moved that equipment to a second location without permission, while the overall drilling operation is still waiting for approval. Still bad in the sense that they're presumably trying to push boundaries, but it's a far cry from actually carrying out "illegal drilling".

ajsnigrutin 2mo ago
> I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill". Unrelated to the topic here, but does anyone else get pissed when news sites change articles, without any indication, without any differences and/or old version linked somewhere? I've sometimes read the article, had a whole argument with someone, where they quoted something from the article that completely changed the meaning of the first version of the article and what I was arguing about. With more and more sites blocking archiving services (archive.org etc.), it's even harder to find the original texts, some existing for weeks or even months before being changed.... it gives me a total "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" vibe.
- JohnFen 2mo ago
  > when news sites change articles, without any indication, without any differences and/or old version linked somewhere? I take that as a strong indication that the news outlet is not to be trusted.
- perpetuallunch 2mo ago
  How do you know you’re not gaslighting yourself? Maybe the article never changed, it always read how the other person interpreted it. You read it through your filters and took something completely different than what it said. I’ve seen this happen heaps. Even with articles where I’ve been able to prove it hasn’t been edited, and books too.
  - gwerbin 2mo ago
    No news sites change headlines and edit articles all the time. Often there's a "last updated" date on the article and it can be days or weeks later than the original posting date. The last-updated date is better than nothing, but without a changelog it's very hard to know what version of the article you or anyone else read at any given time.
  - ajsnigrutin 1mo ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/public-editor/liz-spayd-new-york-times-public-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/public-editor/liz-spayd-n... It's a well known thing for years.
gwerbin 2mo ago
While you're waffling on whether it's technically "illegal drilling" or "illegal not-yet-drilling": 1. the US president has previously threatened a war of conquest in Greenland, a territory of a NATO nation 2. the executive chair of the firm that is doing the illegal not-yet-drilling -- and also a top stakeholder -- is friends with said US president and donated to his campaigns.
- XorNot 2mo ago
  That can all be true, but this is still posturing and they haven't yet broken any laws.
  - black_puppydog 2mo ago
    The article reads like the act of landing the drilling equipment in Greenland was in itself illegal. Not the same as drilling, and ofc IANAL, but still...
    - watwut 2mo ago
      Whenever conservatives, far right or large businesses clearly and openly plan something unethical or illegal or plain damaging, everyone else has a duty to pretend they dont see it. We must extend infinite amounts of benefits of the doubt, even at the price of making ourself look like dumb. (Or course, no benefit of doubt is extend to their opposition.) Or something.
      - gwerbin 2mo ago
        And now in 2026 with NSPM-7 anyone who speaks up against literally anything the US does, can get put on a domestic terrorist list, which sets them up to be punished extrajudicially such as being de-banked. And then if the administration gets their way such individuals will be stripped of citizenship, detained in a concentration camp for a while because contractors make money off of that, and then eventually deported to some unknown place.
  - bigbadfeline 2mo ago
montalbano 2mo ago
> I guess the headline has been changed? No. Check internet archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20260808055323/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwarning-trump-linked-oil-firm-prepares-drill https://web.archive.org/web/20260808055323/https://www.thegu... The HN poster got the title wrong.
- syrrim 2mo ago
  Hn has strict length limits that often force people to editorialize. They could be more careful to not alter the meaning when they do so.
  - montalbano 2mo ago
    The correct title was within the HN title length limit.
    - yorwba 2mo ago
      And it was previously submitted under that title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251785
pvaldes 2mo ago
> it sounds like the issue is that the company did receive permits to ship their equipment to one location in Greenland, and then moved that equipment to a second location without permission, while the overall drilling operation is still waiting for approval. It seems that they just lied to the investors about having any permit, even after Denmark government denying repeatedly that.

ajsnigrutin 2mo ago

> I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill". Unrelated to the topic here, but does anyone else get pissed when news sites change articles, without any indication, without any differences and/or old version linked somewhere? I've sometimes read the article, had a whole argument with someone, where they quoted something from the article that completely changed the meaning of the first version of the article and what I was arguing about. With more and more sites blocking archiving services (archive.org etc.), it's even harder to find the original texts, some existing for weeks or even months before being changed.... it gives me a total "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" vibe.

JohnFen 2mo ago
> when news sites change articles, without any indication, without any differences and/or old version linked somewhere? I take that as a strong indication that the news outlet is not to be trusted.
perpetuallunch 2mo ago
How do you know you’re not gaslighting yourself? Maybe the article never changed, it always read how the other person interpreted it. You read it through your filters and took something completely different than what it said. I’ve seen this happen heaps. Even with articles where I’ve been able to prove it hasn’t been edited, and books too.
- gwerbin 2mo ago
  No news sites change headlines and edit articles all the time. Often there's a "last updated" date on the article and it can be days or weeks later than the original posting date. The last-updated date is better than nothing, but without a changelog it's very hard to know what version of the article you or anyone else read at any given time.
- ajsnigrutin 1mo ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/public-editor/liz-spayd-new-york-times-public-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/public-editor/liz-spayd-n... It's a well known thing for years.

gwerbin 2mo ago

While you're waffling on whether it's technically "illegal drilling" or "illegal not-yet-drilling": 1. the US president has previously threatened a war of conquest in Greenland, a territory of a NATO nation 2. the executive chair of the firm that is doing the illegal not-yet-drilling -- and also a top stakeholder -- is friends with said US president and donated to his campaigns.

XorNot 2mo ago
That can all be true, but this is still posturing and they haven't yet broken any laws.
- black_puppydog 2mo ago
  The article reads like the act of landing the drilling equipment in Greenland was in itself illegal. Not the same as drilling, and ofc IANAL, but still...
  - watwut 2mo ago
    Whenever conservatives, far right or large businesses clearly and openly plan something unethical or illegal or plain damaging, everyone else has a duty to pretend they dont see it. We must extend infinite amounts of benefits of the doubt, even at the price of making ourself look like dumb. (Or course, no benefit of doubt is extend to their opposition.) Or something.
    - gwerbin 2mo ago
      And now in 2026 with NSPM-7 anyone who speaks up against literally anything the US does, can get put on a domestic terrorist list, which sets them up to be punished extrajudicially such as being de-banked. And then if the administration gets their way such individuals will be stripped of citizenship, detained in a concentration camp for a while because contractors make money off of that, and then eventually deported to some unknown place.
- bigbadfeline 2mo ago

montalbano 2mo ago

> I guess the headline has been changed? No. Check internet archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20260808055323/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwarning-trump-linked-oil-firm-prepares-drill https://web.archive.org/web/20260808055323/https://www.thegu... The HN poster got the title wrong.

syrrim 2mo ago
Hn has strict length limits that often force people to editorialize. They could be more careful to not alter the meaning when they do so.
- montalbano 2mo ago
  The correct title was within the HN title length limit.
  - yorwba 2mo ago
    And it was previously submitted under that title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251785

pvaldes 2mo ago

> it sounds like the issue is that the company did receive permits to ship their equipment to one location in Greenland, and then moved that equipment to a second location without permission, while the overall drilling operation is still waiting for approval. It seems that they just lied to the investors about having any permit, even after Denmark government denying repeatedly that.