Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

Please don't editorialize in the titles. Also, there's a lot of material there, what are you referring to, exactly?

From the guidelines:

"You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."

I'd guess that the headline is because the submitter found the link via the BoingBoing article[1] - Cory uses the same phrase in his headline.

[1] http://boingboing.net/2012/03/29/bruce-schneier-hands-former...

I would assume this - "I have made two basic arguments about post-9/11 airport security. One, we are not doing the right things. And two, the things we are doing are wrong."

There's also the moderator stating that Schneier won. The derrier handoff is not obvious at a glance. I think a more neutral title would be better; this is an important debate, not cheering for your favorite sports team.

The moderator was editorializing on the massive skew of votes in favor of Schneier. “Winning” this debate is determined by votes, so there's nothing wrong with that.

However, it is also worth considering that a more neutral title may not have made it onto the front page.

The strings "Bruce Schneier" and "TSA" individually make it likely, and together, almost guaranteed.

I wasn't aware that I was making that contentious a statement.

Was just meaning that the titles on a news site are effectively headlines and that the style of how they are written can massively effect how much attention they are given.

>massively effect how much attention they are given.

This is very true. And is also a massive problem with news sites. You didn't post a accurate, descriptive title, you posted an editorialized opinion.

Yes, you get lots of views if you distort the article (18% do NOT agree that he lost the debate), but catchy title does not good journalism make.

I think HN should shy away from this sort of thing. We'll all complain about Fox, MSNBC and the Drudge Report for their ridiculous headlines (This just in, Obama sacrificed a child! Click for story!!), lets apply the same set of critical standards here.

Otherwise we'll become /r/politics..

I didn't post any title, accurate, descriptive or otherwise.

I'm not the OP, I was just commenting is all.

I wasn't aware that I was making that contentious a statement.

I agree; in fact I found your comment insightful and relevant. Seems strange to me that people were voting it down.

> I have made two basic arguments about post-9/11 airport security. One, we are not doing the right things. And two, the things we are doing are wrong.

Far from being an ass-handing, this seems redundant: those two are the same statement, and that one statement is a not particularly damning version of an already familiar refrain. (The argument itself, I am sure, is substantive, but that summary is not.)

Not the same statement at all. You can do nothing, and then only statement "you are not doing the right things" would be true.

You can also do both the right things and the wrong things, and then only the statemtnt "you are doing the wrong things" would be true.

> You can do nothing, and then only statement "you are not doing the right things" would be true.

The statement "the things we are doing are not the right things" would also be true in this case. (Statements about the empty set are usually called 'vacuously true'.)

> You can also do both the right things and the wrong things, and then only the statemtnt "you are doing the wrong things" would be true.

I agree that "you are doing the wrong things" would be true, but what Schneier said, which is "the things that we are doing are wrong", would not be, at least by my reading with an implicit universal quantifier: "[all] the things that we are doing are wrong". I would describe your situation instead as "some of the things that we are doing are wrong"; and even that is implied by, if not equivalent to, "we are not doing the right things".

Sentences we are speaking of:

    1: "we are not doing the right things"
    2: "the things we are doing are wrong"

You're right that literal logical interpretation of 2 would be true if we are doing nothing, my bad, I've read this like it had implicit "we are doing semething and " at the start, and I'm quite sure it was meant as such by Bruce, but let's ignore that, and speak logic instead :)

We have:

    D - set of things we are doing
    R - set of things that are right
    W - set of things that are wrong

    statement 1 is "intersection of D and R is empty set"
    statement 2 is "D is subset of W"

You can only change "the things we are doing are wrong" into "the things we are doing are not right" if we assume every thing is either right or wrong. I think there are some possible things that TSA could be doing, that are neither right nor wrong.

When D is not subset of (sum of R and W), then 1 is not equivalent to 2.

> When D is not subset of (sum of R and W), then 1 is not equivalent to 2.

Fair enough (though it seems to be different from your original objection); I was implicitly taking 'wrong' as a synonym for 'not right'.

My original objection was based on intuitive understanding of those sentences, and you're right, it's false when you take them literally.

How is commenting on the facts "victory for the proposer, Bruce Schneier, looks certain. The vast majority of voters have agreed with him" in anyway editorializing?

I'd agree that Schneier has made the best arguments and conclusively won the debate. But that's still no reason for editorializing - the comments are the best place for that.

Since you agree that the factual assertion in the title is correct, what exactly do you mean when you accuse it of editorializing?

Editorialising is not making false statements; it is making value judgements.

EDIT: I wanted to clarify a bit more the distinction I mean to draw between 'factual' and 'true'. "Schneier hands former TSA boss his ass" is (for a reasonable definition of the terms) 'true', but so, presumably, is "Former TSA boss attempts to spread message in an unsympathetic forum". I would call both versions true but editorial ('editorialistic'?); whereas I would call something like "87% of people polled disagree with former TSA boss on security measures" factual.

If you click "Vote now or add your view", you find that 87% of the debate observers were convinced by Schneier. I believe that counts as an ass handing.

It's the difference between a Hacker News that tells you how to feel about an issue, and a Hacker News that assumes you're a big boy and can generate your own opinion. When linking to a source material it's best to stay neutral.

I don't see how title is telling me what to think. It's using interesting language. Artistic license != editorializing. If title had made some opinion on the facts, such as Schneinr is right, or made up something not in article, tsa stooge is an asshat. That would be editorializing.

I would hate it hn was reduced to "let's not offend anyone, groupthink" titles. Like "link to article."

People submit articles, they get to and should add their personality to the title. Otherwise why even have them, just suck title from page.

It doesn't mean that any debate observers were convinced by Schneier. It just means they agree with the motion.

In order to see who was convinced, you'd need those polled to have given their opinion before the debate and after, to calculate any change in opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com