|
|
|
|
|
|
by 1vuio0pswjnm7
1622 days ago
|
|
|
Under this definition of "editorialize", instances where someone else besides the submitter uses, i.e., changes, the title to express their own point of view about what's important in the article or the story are not examples of editorializing. Why not let people make up their own minds. The source of the article or story chooses a title; it is their right to do so. Readers may or may not agree with that choice, and they are free to point out where they believe it may be misleading or "linkbait". What is the harm in allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. By changing the title, that process of review by a variety of readers is prevented. Why not let readers be independent thinkers. |
|
|
The whole point of HN's approach to titles is to let people make up their own minds. The title is by far the most important influence on a thread. Nothing else comes close. Letting submitters rewrite titles to suit their own point of view amounts to conferring the power to control the entire discussion, or at least strongly influence it. On HN, being the person to submit an article does not convey any particular authority over the content.
HN's moderation practice around titles has been well established for over a decade. Accurate, neutral titles, preferably using representative language from the article itself, are probably the single biggest thing that keeps this site the way it is.