[wf]

But I would say this falls under "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". News pieces with large audiences being largely edited to deliver a different message after they've "gone viral" is similar to a high traffic website being hacked to deliver a message about something else.

[CrippledTurtle]

I agree that the topic you mention is interesting, but the article as posted is practically guaranteed to devolve into political discussion rather than a discussion about the point you bring up.

A better article, IMO, would have noted that the NYT does this consistently and has done so in a way that has harmed all candidates, not to mention non presidential conversation. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870347 for another example of this practice.

[zellyn]

I agree. I was glad this was on hackernews.

[deathhand]

This is the point where I draw a reference to 1984 where the main character's job was to do exactly what the New York Times is doing.

[brador]

The question is, is it done with malice or to further align the article to the viral viewers and hopefully make it even more viral?