3 ms·
> By delegating editing to the publishers, he provides a defence against PRs astroturfing HN Maybe I misunderstand the use case you are referring to, but isn't
by lobster_johnson 13y ago
> By delegating editing to the publishers, he provides a defence against PRs astroturfing HN
Maybe I misunderstand the use case you are referring to, but isn't the PR always the publisher (or in cohorts with the publisher)? In other words, you can't use original titles to prevent astroturfing because the original title/content itself is tainted.
- 001sky 13y agoWhat you are trying to avoid is the "house of mirrors", with HN being the fun-house. PR work done through a publisher is not astroturfing, its "normal PR work". PRs disguising their paid work as "grass roots" support, though, is planting "fake grass". The latter is the definition of Astroturf. If you have PRs overwriting PRs, you just get a house of mirrors effect and start increasing noise/signal.
- lobster_johnson 13y agoBut surely the PR people would be in charge of the astroturfing, and hence in control of the titles used?
- 001sky 13y agoThat's exactly why (i'm assuming) PG doesn't want HN users re-writing the headlines. Its sort of like saying take 1 level of PR spin, and then discuss. The other option is take 2 levels of PR spin, and then discuss. The problem with the latter is that you end up with a matrix: AA AB BB BA, two of which are worse...