i kinda agree with /u/u_tamtam, it’s standard practice to not change titles when posting articles to link aggregators, so most users (reasonably so) operate off of the assumption that the titles aren’t altered
this gets esp confusing, when ppl change the headlines only slightly
The only way people would get confused is if they didn’t bother actually looking at the article, at which point I don’t think they can meaningful contribute to any discussion of the article.
Nobody said anything about misleading people. If people disagree with the framing then they can add their view and have a discussion about it in the thread. That’s literally the point of having a forum is it not?
not misleading per se (more like confusing), bc ppl may choose read the article and engage with the post depending on the title of the article, which they expect to come from the publisher, not the user posting the link to the article (but that’s just my opinion 🤷♀️)
I guess we have a different understanding of the purpose of having forums like Lemmy. If I just wanted a news feed, then I’d use RSS for that. To me the point is precisely for people to provide their own views on the topics in the submissions, and explain in their words why they thought a story was worth sharing. This is what makes it a social media site.
I also don’t really see how keeping the title the same has impact on whether people choose to engage with the post. Seems to me that would be based on whether they thought the title in the submission was interesting or not.
Did you even read the article? With the information released it very well could still be a spy balloon - highlighted by then saying their efforts to stop it were partly to thank, that had to have been stopping something
The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content. I think the post title should reflect what was interesting about the article. You are of course free to make your own community with whatever rules you like.
There’s nothing to defend here. The reason there’s a free form field for the title is precisely allow people to write titles for their submissions. Meanwhile, content of the article can be fine even when there’s a clickbaity headline, or sometimes it’s useful to link an article as an illustration or a commentary without endorsing it.
The only way people would get confused is if they didn’t bother actually looking at the article, at which point they don’t have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion. So, not really sure what problem you’re trying to solve to be honest.
Can we have a policy here of not rewriting/making up titles? I’m not interested on personal takes before reaching the comments section.
i kinda agree with /u/u_tamtam, it’s standard practice to not change titles when posting articles to link aggregators, so most users (reasonably so) operate off of the assumption that the titles aren’t altered
this gets esp confusing, when ppl change the headlines only slightly
The only way people would get confused is if they didn’t bother actually looking at the article, at which point I don’t think they can meaningful contribute to any discussion of the article.
do you think there’s no value in not misleading ppl who don’t engage w/ the post? 🤷♀️
Nobody said anything about misleading people. If people disagree with the framing then they can add their view and have a discussion about it in the thread. That’s literally the point of having a forum is it not?
not misleading per se (more like confusing), bc ppl may choose read the article and engage with the post depending on the title of the article, which they expect to come from the publisher, not the user posting the link to the article (but that’s just my opinion 🤷♀️)
I guess we have a different understanding of the purpose of having forums like Lemmy. If I just wanted a news feed, then I’d use RSS for that. To me the point is precisely for people to provide their own views on the topics in the submissions, and explain in their words why they thought a story was worth sharing. This is what makes it a social media site.
I also don’t really see how keeping the title the same has impact on whether people choose to engage with the post. Seems to me that would be based on whether they thought the title in the submission was interesting or not.
Did you even read the article? With the information released it very well could still be a spy balloon - highlighted by then saying their efforts to stop it were partly to thank, that had to have been stopping something
I love how people keep clinging to the idea that it still could be a spy balloon in face of all logic.
The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content. I think the post title should reflect what was interesting about the article. You are of course free to make your own community with whatever rules you like.
How is that a defense for letting anyone rewrite titles? Silly idea, if the source is that bad, how about just not using it?
There’s nothing to defend here. The reason there’s a free form field for the title is precisely allow people to write titles for their submissions. Meanwhile, content of the article can be fine even when there’s a clickbaity headline, or sometimes it’s useful to link an article as an illustration or a commentary without endorsing it.
The only way people would get confused is if they didn’t bother actually looking at the article, at which point they don’t have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion. So, not really sure what problem you’re trying to solve to be honest.