4 ms·

"Shouts at sleeping infant" I hate that kind of sensationalist, link baiting journalism.

by cpayne 12y ago

emiliobumachar 12y ago
Both the title and the article seemed pretty objective to me. In this case, the facts are truly sensational. What looks linkbaity to you?
- bertil 12y ago
  The facts are there, but they might be framed in a wait to make them come off as worst, or more impressive than they really are, hiding a more representative reality. To take a controversial example: Pointing out how many hardened criminals are from a certain ethnic background might be true, yet without precautions about discrimination, correlation between economic opportunities, expectation once jailed a first time, attitude of parole system… it can come off as racist, because it over-simplifies a problem. In many cases, say point out the gender breakdown of declared sexual assaillants, take a minority behaviour to placate it to a larger group. In that case, the title seems to imply (although, does not say) that the ‘hacker’ was a threat to the baby. He never actually was: yelling at a baby is callous coming from an adult, but their siblings probably do that daily. More to the point, it gives the impression that accessing a home connexion is about bodily harm and threats to physically fragile people -- or even heartless pranks. Truth is: the real issue is a lot more about accessing your digital assets, identity and bank account.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    I'm curious how you would have written the headline, since you seem to be wading through a very large miasma of implications in order to come to your conclusions.
    - bertil 12y ago
      I would rather consider a study on the ratio of home appliances, mainly routers and computers, that have been tapered with -- from a large and representative sample. I would measure actual damages, intent and describe insulting an infant as a “careless prank” without giving much more detail. I would probably focus my angle on security updates, and consider practices: namely, what was said higher up about parents being tired and most likely sensitive to simpler authentification protocol. I would actually like to investigate why so many people are dubious of updates. > miasma of implications I’m not sure that tone applies. An infant has bare social skills, little idea of property beyond holding and no lasting memory; it is therefore far less sensitive to the threat of ‘hacking’ than its parents. I don’t see any miasma in “implying” (nota: I was being careful because you come off as very anal) that it was used as a symbol of frailty that needs protected — a symbol that only makes sense in an inappropriate physical interpretation of the event. Then again: You were the one asking why that title could be seen as inappropriate. Could. I answered that. I didn’t claim my answer was purely objective: interpreting representativity never entirely is. I will now remember not to answer questions you ask, certainly in a way that could possibly change your position: you obviously don’t like that. In a related concern: why the f-ck is someone so bigoted doing on HackerNews?
      - saraid216 12y ago
        ...okay. 1) I'm not the person you think you're responding to. 2) You're objectively lying about what you're responding to. 3) What position did I take, precisely, that you'd like to change? 4) Have you considered learning how to read? Because being incapable of it is the most charitable conclusion I can draw from your comment... and that's not even bothering with the original topic.
IvyMike 12y ago
> sensationalist "the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement" The "at the expense of accuracy" part doesn't seem to apply here-- the hacker did in fact scream at a sleeping infant.

"Shouts at sleeping infant" I hate that kind of sensationalist, link baiting journalism.

by cpayne 12y ago

"Shouts at sleeping infant" I hate that kind of sensationalist, link baiting journalism.

Both the title and the article seemed pretty objective to me. In this case, the facts are truly sensational. What looks linkbaity to you?

bertil 12y ago
The facts are there, but they might be framed in a wait to make them come off as worst, or more impressive than they really are, hiding a more representative reality. To take a controversial example: Pointing out how many hardened criminals are from a certain ethnic background might be true, yet without precautions about discrimination, correlation between economic opportunities, expectation once jailed a first time, attitude of parole system… it can come off as racist, because it over-simplifies a problem. In many cases, say point out the gender breakdown of declared sexual assaillants, take a minority behaviour to placate it to a larger group. In that case, the title seems to imply (although, does not say) that the ‘hacker’ was a threat to the baby. He never actually was: yelling at a baby is callous coming from an adult, but their siblings probably do that daily. More to the point, it gives the impression that accessing a home connexion is about bodily harm and threats to physically fragile people -- or even heartless pranks. Truth is: the real issue is a lot more about accessing your digital assets, identity and bank account.
- saraid216 12y ago
  I'm curious how you would have written the headline, since you seem to be wading through a very large miasma of implications in order to come to your conclusions.
  - bertil 12y ago
    I would rather consider a study on the ratio of home appliances, mainly routers and computers, that have been tapered with -- from a large and representative sample. I would measure actual damages, intent and describe insulting an infant as a “careless prank” without giving much more detail. I would probably focus my angle on security updates, and consider practices: namely, what was said higher up about parents being tired and most likely sensitive to simpler authentification protocol. I would actually like to investigate why so many people are dubious of updates. > miasma of implications I’m not sure that tone applies. An infant has bare social skills, little idea of property beyond holding and no lasting memory; it is therefore far less sensitive to the threat of ‘hacking’ than its parents. I don’t see any miasma in “implying” (nota: I was being careful because you come off as very anal) that it was used as a symbol of frailty that needs protected — a symbol that only makes sense in an inappropriate physical interpretation of the event. Then again: You were the one asking why that title could be seen as inappropriate. Could. I answered that. I didn’t claim my answer was purely objective: interpreting representativity never entirely is. I will now remember not to answer questions you ask, certainly in a way that could possibly change your position: you obviously don’t like that. In a related concern: why the f-ck is someone so bigoted doing on HackerNews?
    - saraid216 12y ago
      ...okay. 1) I'm not the person you think you're responding to. 2) You're objectively lying about what you're responding to. 3) What position did I take, precisely, that you'd like to change? 4) Have you considered learning how to read? Because being incapable of it is the most charitable conclusion I can draw from your comment... and that's not even bothering with the original topic.

IvyMike 12y ago

> sensationalist "the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement" The "at the expense of accuracy" part doesn't seem to apply here-- the hacker did in fact scream at a sleeping infant.