3 ms·
This how The Economist promoted their own article on Twitter: "Indians have become an extraordinarily successful minority in America. A burgeoning new elite" (h
by randomname2 11y ago
This how The Economist promoted their own article on Twitter: "Indians have become an extraordinarily successful minority in America. A burgeoning new elite" (https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/603433973361041408 https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/603433973361041408), as I had pointed out in the first comment here.
While this doesn't fit into the 80 characters HN enforces, and The Economist may have been "editorializing" by using that alternative title, they editorialize by definition and I'm not sure stepping in and changing the title was necessary here.
The surprisingness of The Economist making that statement is what made that widely retweeted and made for interesting discussion here. Or was it the quotes that were "problematic" / offensive?
- dang 11y agoThe rules here ask you to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. It's fine to use a subtitle instead, if it's more neutral or informative. What's not fine is to pick what you think is important about the article and make that the title—that's what we mean by editorializing. On HN, the submitter of a story doesn't get to frame it for everybody else. Since the title of a post is the single most important influence on the discussion, this is important.