6 ms·

This is one of the most uninformed titles I've read. There were no eu (commission or council) plans to kill freedom of panorama. The liberals inside the Europea

by alttt 11y ago

This is one of the most uninformed titles I've read. There were no eu (commission or council) plans to kill freedom of panorama. The liberals inside the European parliament proposed it in one committee, the liberals, conservatives, right wing and socialists voted in favour of it (green and left against) in the committee and it passed. Now in the plenary, after sufficient backlash, socialists and some liberals have changed their opinion, thus an amendment introduced in a committee was slashed in three plenary. All that happened in the parliament, not in a mysterious other EU.

coldtea 11y ago
In what way does the European Parliament does not qualify as "EU"? In any case, it wasn't the national governments that voted for it. (Especially since the Parliament is mostly a fig leaf for the Council and Commission, but I digress).
- matthewowen 11y ago
  I think the point he's making is that it isn't as though the European Parliament is "standing up against" the EU or whatever: the parliament is part of the EU; you could rewrite the headline as "EU rejects EU plan". That view may not fully capture the subtlety of the matter though.
jkldotio 11y ago
>This is one of the most uninformed titles I've read. Well then perhaps you should read the article. Yours is a classic HN pedant response where some minor technical issue, which frequently isn't even an issue, becomes a fixation. You are taking issue with a minor ambiguity in the headline which is clarified by reading the article. I wish people would stop these type of comments, they are the commentator's equivalent of a journalist's "gotcha" based on not letting the person being interviewed complete what they were saying and/or selectively editing.
- fineman 11y ago
  No, they're right. The title mislead me. The title suggests the EU decided something. Done. And then some European parliament came in and vetoed it. wtf? Instead, a correct title would seem to be "European parliament strongly rejected proposal to axe 'freedom of panorama' across the EU"...? The difference being "EU members' plan" vs "plan for the EU".
  - jkldotio 11y ago
    Titles are titles: they need to be short and are only an indication of the content, not a full summary. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the title can always be perfect summary from. Some degree of ambiguity is therefore almost always given if you only have one, short, sentence to act as a title. It follows from this that out of tens of thousands of readers there will always be a few, perhaps even quite a few, for whom a title doesn't serve as a completely perfect summary. But rather than clogging up huge numbers of comment threads with completely pointless pedantry why don't you just read the actual article? I suppose I wouldn't complain so much if completely pointless interjections such as yours and the original one I responded to were at the bottom of the comment threads, but they are frequently at the top. It's IMO a total cancer on HN comment threads because it adds no value to have someone splitting pointless definitional hairs (not refuting a central point via a definitional argument as per PG's hierarchy of disagreement[0]) as the first comment. People roaring about their ignorance and apparent incapacity to read the actual article doesn't help any debate. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...
    - fineman 11y ago
      Your bitching is longer than what you're bitching about. That's the cancer. And no, it's not pointless definitional games, the title is intentionally totally wrong. Black vs white. It's not like it's mostly right but not quite, it's almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words. And it's not about pointing out mistakes, it's about calling out pointless clickbait to get it flagged and telling people how to spot it next time. You for one seem to think it's an honest mistake and a good article. > People roaring about their ignorance and [...] Oh, you don't say. Do they go on and on? Cluelessly unaware that everyone is looking at them? Wow.

by alttt 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

In what way does the European Parliament does not qualify as "EU"? In any case, it wasn't the national governments that voted for it. (Especially since the Parliament is mostly a fig leaf for the Council and Commission, but I digress).

matthewowen 11y ago
I think the point he's making is that it isn't as though the European Parliament is "standing up against" the EU or whatever: the parliament is part of the EU; you could rewrite the headline as "EU rejects EU plan". That view may not fully capture the subtlety of the matter though.

jkldotio 11y ago

>This is one of the most uninformed titles I've read. Well then perhaps you should read the article. Yours is a classic HN pedant response where some minor technical issue, which frequently isn't even an issue, becomes a fixation. You are taking issue with a minor ambiguity in the headline which is clarified by reading the article. I wish people would stop these type of comments, they are the commentator's equivalent of a journalist's "gotcha" based on not letting the person being interviewed complete what they were saying and/or selectively editing.

fineman 11y ago
No, they're right. The title mislead me. The title suggests the EU decided something. Done. And then some European parliament came in and vetoed it. wtf? Instead, a correct title would seem to be "European parliament strongly rejected proposal to axe 'freedom of panorama' across the EU"...? The difference being "EU members' plan" vs "plan for the EU".
- jkldotio 11y ago
  Titles are titles: they need to be short and are only an indication of the content, not a full summary. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the title can always be perfect summary from. Some degree of ambiguity is therefore almost always given if you only have one, short, sentence to act as a title. It follows from this that out of tens of thousands of readers there will always be a few, perhaps even quite a few, for whom a title doesn't serve as a completely perfect summary. But rather than clogging up huge numbers of comment threads with completely pointless pedantry why don't you just read the actual article? I suppose I wouldn't complain so much if completely pointless interjections such as yours and the original one I responded to were at the bottom of the comment threads, but they are frequently at the top. It's IMO a total cancer on HN comment threads because it adds no value to have someone splitting pointless definitional hairs (not refuting a central point via a definitional argument as per PG's hierarchy of disagreement[0]) as the first comment. People roaring about their ignorance and apparent incapacity to read the actual article doesn't help any debate. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...
  - fineman 11y ago
    Your bitching is longer than what you're bitching about. That's the cancer. And no, it's not pointless definitional games, the title is intentionally totally wrong. Black vs white. It's not like it's mostly right but not quite, it's almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words. And it's not about pointing out mistakes, it's about calling out pointless clickbait to get it flagged and telling people how to spot it next time. You for one seem to think it's an honest mistake and a good article. > People roaring about their ignorance and [...] Oh, you don't say. Do they go on and on? Cluelessly unaware that everyone is looking at them? Wow.