> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.
As a reader, there's a real difference between deciding to upvote the original title (an observer's description of an inherently deceptive project) versus casting a vote on what it's been changed to (a brand name used to promote that project). I would absolutely upvote an article critical of The Spinner - while at the same time, I'd downvote a promotional submission.
OP did not intend to advertise The Spinner, they intended to expose it as a deceptive project without linking to third-party press coverage. The submission title absolutely matters.
If this changes your mind, please go with the original again.
The HN guidelines do ask submitters to use the site's title "unless it is misleading or linkbait" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). That's why we changed it.
Point about importance vs. endorsement is well taken; I would rather not give any publicity to this project without couching it in explicit criticism, but that's a personal choice.
Our memory is a unreliable narrator and sanity might change overtime too. Why do you think those wouldn't be affected if you find yourself being victim to purposefully wrong and harmful information?
I’m pretty okay with their use of the word by your own definition.
In the opposite direction, you could choose to reinforce current ideas. Which, due to confirmation bias, would probably be easier than gaslighting.
But those are also things people may be comfortable just asking up front.
Of course other messages like "quit your job" for a coworker just seem spiteful and mean spirited.
No, gaslighting is systematically disorienting a person by staging confusing events, and blaming that confusion on the target themself. A one-way pipeline of targeted ads is not gaslighting, unless you call your wife crazy when she complains about all these weird ads she's seeing. But that's not what this service is automating.
>>Three most common methods of gaslighting are:
Hiding: The abuser may hide things from the victim and cover up what they have done. Instead of feeling ashamed, the abuser may convince the victim to doubt their own beliefs about the situation and turn the blame on themselves.
Changing: The abuser feels the need to change something about the victim. Whether it be the way the victim dresses or acts, they want the victim to mold into their fantasy. If the victim does not comply, the abuser may convince the victim that he or she is in fact not good enough.
Control: The abuser may want to fully control and have power over the victim. In doing so, the abuser will try to seclude them from other friends and family so only they can influence the victim's thoughts and actions. The abuser gets pleasure from knowing the victim is being fully controlled by them.
If targeting ads and content to an individual is 'gaslighting', then yeah - I'd say most internet/social media co's have a problem on their hands.
I mean, that opinion is pretty in-vogue right now, isn't it?
Just because the copy doesn't mention it doesn't mean it's not there.
The issue I take is with the complete lack of informed consent at play here. I’m not willing to see that as a positive. The toxic behavior in secretly manipulating for “good” far outweighs any altruism in my book.
When someone is struggling with something, often the most difficult step is changing habits. Them knowing they have a problem can help, and it is an important step, but it's not enough by itself.