Non-IT News Thread
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just reading the headline makes me think "Duh, what else would CNN tell you"
Except, that is Scott's made up headline to get you to click it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/health/screentime-guilt-parenting-strauss/index.htmlHis headline isn't too far off of the original CNN one: "Parents, stop feeling so guilty about TV time".
While true, it is not the headline. It is his reinterpretation of it.
That is always what I have issue with.
Post without putting your spin on the item .. You spin can be in follow up text all you want.
But why is it okay to spin later, but not at the time? That doesn't make logical sense. First, I didn't spin it at all, it was simply stating the facts... that CNN was saying this thing. Second, it's conceptually mistaken. There is no logical reason why the only thing any link can be is the title of the article to which it links. No one does that, that's not how the web or links work.
If we were to do that, why have hyperlinking as we do at all, rather than linking our own text to other things? You are missing how the web is designed to be used.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just reading the headline makes me think "Duh, what else would CNN tell you"
Except, that is Scott's made up headline to get you to click it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/health/screentime-guilt-parenting-strauss/index.htmlHis headline isn't too far off of the original CNN one: "Parents, stop feeling so guilty about TV time".
Right, I didn't mention it was specifically parents, didn't seem necessary, and added that it was CNN's opinion, which theirs didn't have. Mine was LESS click bait that the original.
It is still your interpretation, and not they literal thing being posted to. that is no better than burying shit in a URL shortener in my opinion.
You are the one who always demands such literal interpretations of things. So stop pushing your agenda with simple news article links. Let us determine that.
Acceptable options instead of the shit you posted:
The @scottalanmiller opinion
CNN says Stop Feeling Guilty About Kids Watching Television
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/health/screentime-guilt-parenting-strauss/index.htmlor actual article title.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just reading the headline makes me think "Duh, what else would CNN tell you"
Except, that is Scott's made up headline to get you to click it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/health/screentime-guilt-parenting-strauss/index.htmlHis headline isn't too far off of the original CNN one: "Parents, stop feeling so guilty about TV time".
While true, it is not the headline. It is his reinterpretation of it.
That is always what I have issue with.
Post without putting your spin on the item .. You spin can be in follow up text all you want.
But why is it okay to spin later, but not at the time? That doesn't make logical sense. First, I didn't spin it at all, it was simply stating the facts... that CNN was saying this thing. Second, it's conceptually mistaken. There is no logical reason why the only thing any link can be is the title of the article to which it links. No one does that, that's not how the web or links work.
If we were to do that, why have hyperlinking as we do at all, rather than linking our own text to other things? You are missing how the web is designed to be used.
No, I am not. By altering the original title you are creating a bias by default towards you own opinion.
This one was actually tame compared to some that you have done. So yes, it was barely different.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
If we were to do that, why have hyperlinking as we do at all, rather than linking our own text to other things? You are missing how the web is designed to be used.
More apps are generating a preview based on the content of the site using only the URL. It's becoming more and more normal to not hyperlink the way we have done traditionally.
-
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just reading the headline makes me think "Duh, what else would CNN tell you"
Except, that is Scott's made up headline to get you to click it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/health/screentime-guilt-parenting-strauss/index.htmlHis headline isn't too far off of the original CNN one: "Parents, stop feeling so guilty about TV time".
While true, it is not the headline. It is his reinterpretation of it.
That is always what I have issue with.
Post without putting your spin on the item .. You spin can be in follow up text all you want.
But why is it okay to spin later, but not at the time? That doesn't make logical sense. First, I didn't spin it at all, it was simply stating the facts... that CNN was saying this thing. Second, it's conceptually mistaken. There is no logical reason why the only thing any link can be is the title of the article to which it links. No one does that, that's not how the web or links work.
If we were to do that, why have hyperlinking as we do at all, rather than linking our own text to other things? You are missing how the web is designed to be used.
No, I am not. By altering the original title you are creating a bias by default towards you own opinion.
This one was actually tame compared to some that you have done. So yes, it was barely different.
I didn't alter the title. That's not what a link is. Your foundation for the complaint is incorrect. And actually if there is any bias, it's away from my opinion since I softened a message that I felt that they overstated.
You often assume a bias that isn't there or is backwards, then believe I've added that bias. You are already biased believing I do this, and see a bias that isn't there because of it. And you see it in a place where it's not sensible to look for it, because I didn't provide a title, I mentioned a topic that was as clear as could be, not a title. I said what CNN had said, that's journalism. Don't expect any link to be a title, a link implies that in no way.
-
@bnrstnr said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
If we were to do that, why have hyperlinking as we do at all, rather than linking our own text to other things? You are missing how the web is designed to be used.
More apps are generating a preview based on the content of the site using only the URL. It's becoming more and more normal to not hyperlink the way we have done traditionally.
But we cannot use "some places have spam" to say "humans can no longer use the web." He knows its not a title, a spam bot, or a pure repetition to promote the original site, but mentioning a topic like the web was designed for.
Agreed, spam has started using titles in some cases with links, but it's a coincidence that they coincide, and not a requirement that it be identical and we should expect that more intelligent bots will reverse this to act like humans in the very near future to combat SEO filtering.
-
@scottalanmiller I have to agree with @JaredBusch in general. There have been more than a few articles that you have posted with your own title on the link instead of the article's original title. @JaredBusch is right in that the way to not engage in click bait like behaviour is to simply have the link and/or post the title. Then post what you think about it. I don't have a problem with you having an opinion about the things you post, but I'd like to receive the information from the source as unfiltered as possible, or at least in parallel with another's perspective.
-
As a perfect example, the article in question uses this phrase: "This includes many, many lovely, curious and conscientious parents who allow their equally lovely, curious and conscientious children an American Academy of Pediatrics-approved one to seven hours a week of television and video games." and links from the middle of it to an article whose original title was "Where We Stand: Screen Time" and was not written by the entity mentioned in the link, but was a third party interpretation of some other source material. It's not opinion or bias, it's just a basic rewording of the original to be meaningful to the current audience. Just like what I did, they used the opportunity to say whose opinion was the one they were linking, not trying to pass it off as fact or their own opinion. All I did was add the fact that it was CNN stating the opinion linked. Similar to a quote with attribution.
-
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller I have to agree with @JaredBusch in general. There have been more than a few articles that you have posted with your own title on the link instead of the article's original title.
No, I provide a link, but not a title. The title is on the article. Claiming that links are titles is what leads us to confusion. They are not, unless stated. What I did here wasn't a title, it was a link with a meaningful, non-biased addition of stating whose article it was linking to. If I provided the original title instead as the link, it would be as if I was stating that that was my opinion, but I was not trying to add an opinion of my own, so didn't want to do that. Had I done so, then Jared would have complained that it's just CNN's opinion and not fact and just putting a straight title as if I agreed was adding my bias.
-
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch is right in that the way to not engage in click bait like behaviour is to simply have the link and/or post the title.
Given the original title, and how mine made it clear it was CNN's opinion, how did I not mitigate the existing click bait? I specifically was attempting to not replicate the click bait. How does adding that it is CNN's opinion make it more click bait?
Click bait implies that it is misleading or sensational. Both things I reduced, rather than increased.
-
@kelly said in Non-IT News Thread:
Then post what you think about it. I don't have a problem with you having an opinion about the things you post, but I'd like to receive the information from the source as unfiltered as possible, or at least in parallel with another's perspective.
But there was no opinion added whatsoever. Not a thing. I can't even imagine what Jared is thinking my opinion was based on what I put. A robot could have put that based off of just stating the topic and mentioning the source. Nothing of my own was added.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
My link above. CNN's was "Parents, stop feeling so guilty about TV time"
CNN's is harder, more click bait, gives an opinion right there. Mine doesn't give opinion, but simply journalisticly provides CNN's opinion and clearly does so as stating that it is something CNN is saying.
The only thing that I changed was not mentioning that it was targeted to parents, because I couldn't imagine anyone would think it was for someone else.
-
Digital Ocean announced Custom OS Images Today
That's a feature that a lot of people have been asking for, for quite a while. This makes things like FreePBX much more viable there.
-
World leaders laugh during Trump's UN speech today.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trumps-un-speech-draws-blank-stares-laughter/ar-AAABj9K?ocid=spartanntp -
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
3 to 10 years. . . which is was less than the three 10 year terms he was looking at. The judge compounded those convictions.
Really a shame, he should die in prison.
-
@dustinb3403 At his age and health, that's probably what is going to happen. Probably be minimal security, which is like a mandatory country club, but still...going to die in prison. What a way to end a legacy.
-
@nerdydad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 At his age and health, that's probably what is going to happen. Probably be minimal security, which is like a mandatory country club, but still...going to die in prison. What a way to end a legacy.
A legacy of raping women and essentially torturing them. He's a pig and deserves it.
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
He deserves to be stuck in a prison where all the other inmates have the option to roofie him and have their way with him anytime they like. Fucking scumbag.
