3 ms·

WTF? There was a reason I choose that url... It was a better article and had a better title. The url and title you changed it to was already submitted by someon

WTF? There was a reason I choose that url... It was a better article and had a better title. The url and title you changed it to was already submitted by someone else two hours before me but it never gained any traction. EDIT: My original title and url... $12 A Month For Facebook – Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality With New Prepaid Plan http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/ http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook...

post_break 12y ago
Yeah that's some nice moderating right there.
dang 12y ago
The title was "Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality" and the article began, "Today, Sprint dispensed with all subtlety. Without any pretense of net neutrality whatsoever..." It should be obvious that that is far too tendentious for HN. We're looking for pieces without blatant spin. Readers can make up their own minds. We changed to the WSJ article not because it was best, but because it was the handiest one that wasn't breathy with drama. That's why I asked for pointers to more substantive articles, if there are any. As for the original submission not gaining traction, (a) that's fraught with randomness, and (b) traction doesn't prove goodness—if it did, linkbait (for example) wouldn't be a problem.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Thank you for putting in the time to cut the noise.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  My point was the title and url you switched to were previously submitted hours before mine but drew no interest. It was my title and url submission that caught fire with the HN crowd. Spin? Come on... The article was right on. I know people like to pretend everything has two sides but in this case...NOPE. This Sprint plan is totally bad for consumers and the future of the Internet itself. Any one who thinks otherwise is a troll or just an idiot.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - 01Michael10 12y ago
      Correct, you can't intelligently justify how these Sprint plans could be good for anyone (except for the carrier itself). Well maybe if you are like 12 years old and new to this Internet thing and it's history...

post_break 12y ago

Yeah that's some nice moderating right there.

dang 12y ago

The title was "Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality" and the article began, "Today, Sprint dispensed with all subtlety. Without any pretense of net neutrality whatsoever..." It should be obvious that that is far too tendentious for HN. We're looking for pieces without blatant spin. Readers can make up their own minds. We changed to the WSJ article not because it was best, but because it was the handiest one that wasn't breathy with drama. That's why I asked for pointers to more substantive articles, if there are any. As for the original submission not gaining traction, (a) that's fraught with randomness, and (b) traction doesn't prove goodness—if it did, linkbait (for example) wouldn't be a problem.

bduerst 12y ago
Thank you for putting in the time to cut the noise.
01Michael10 12y ago
My point was the title and url you switched to were previously submitted hours before mine but drew no interest. It was my title and url submission that caught fire with the HN crowd. Spin? Come on... The article was right on. I know people like to pretend everything has two sides but in this case...NOPE. This Sprint plan is totally bad for consumers and the future of the Internet itself. Any one who thinks otherwise is a troll or just an idiot.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    Correct, you can't intelligently justify how these Sprint plans could be good for anyone (except for the carrier itself). Well maybe if you are like 12 years old and new to this Internet thing and it's history...