zlacker

The source, https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/, seems like a much better article.

But it is hilarious in a meta kind of way that a bottom feeder "summarize real writing done by others, and slap on a clickbait headline" website pretends to have the moral high ground on this issue. I wonder what the guidance they give t to their writers is, and what metrics they're pushed to improve.

>>jsnell+(OP)
Thanks, this is a much better article!

>>jsnell+(OP)
That article has a lot of quality but it also has a lot of telling the history of Netflix. Of the eight sections, I'd only really recommend the first plus a paragraph, then 6-8, maybe 5-8.

I wouldn't call the OP clickbait, it's a reasonable title for the focus of the article. And I appreciate it having focus.

>>jsnell+(OP)
The shorter article is better.

>>jsnell+(OP)
This article is very informative article, but it is funny that it seems to imply that Netflix is somehow essentially evil, compared to the artsy heros of the 90s, such as Harvey Weinstein's Miramax.

>>jsnell+(OP)
belated note: we changed the URL from https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2024/12/27/netflix-tells-wr... to the article it is reporting on. Thanks!

Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html