←back to thread

1210 points jbegley | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
plsbenice34 ◴[] No.43656921[source]
Why is the word Israeli removed from the title? and Meta added? Seems like quite a politically-important modification
replies(4): >>43656931 #>>43656945 #>>43657309 #>>43658109 #
switch007[dead post] ◴[] No.43657309[source]
[flagged]
dang ◴[] No.43657619[source]
We can't control which words people are super-reactive to in titles; we can only empirically observe what they are and try to dampen the effect, with the hope of making a thoughtful discussion at least a little more likely.
replies(1): >>43657743 #
bad_haircut72 ◴[] No.43657743[source]
I this case you have completely changed the meaning of the title though. It sounds Like Meta did this of their own initiative which is a very different message.
replies(1): >>43657845 #
dang ◴[] No.43657845{3}[source]
I don't read it that way, FWIW.

I think some of you are overly focusing on the title instead of the overall effect of the moderator interventions here, which is that the article gets more attention and the story more coverage. In that sense, I'd think it would be in you guys' interest to take yes for an answer, much as zzzeek has here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43657317.

replies(2): >>43658353 #>>43660381 #
anigbrowl ◴[] No.43660381{4}[source]
I certainly did. I saw this late and read the comments before reading the article, which I often do to save myself time if it turns out there's some glaring evidentiary or logical hole in a politically themed news story. I took the headline at face value and got 3/4 of the way down the page before discovering the direct involvement of a state actor. I absolutely expected to read a story about Meta execs doing this exclusively on their own initiative.

Posting this not to argue about your decision but to describe the impression I formed from reading the title.

replies(1): >>43660514 #
1. dang ◴[] No.43660514{5}[source]
Ok, I hear you and have reverted the title.