zlacker

"There is important additional context around it, of course,"

Indeed, which is why a comment that has infinitely more room to expand on the context should include that context when they are criticizing the title for being misleading.

Both the title and the comment I replied to are misleading. One because of the framing, the other because of the deliberate exclusion of extremely important context.

Imagine if someone accused you of "Uploading CSAM to Google Drive" without any other context. It's one of the most serious accusations possible! Adding like five extra words of context to make it clear that you are not a pedophile trafficking CSAM is not that much of an ask.

>>jfindp+(OP)
Fair enough. I'd already included the fact about it being a data set in the post once, which seemed clear enough especially when my actual point was that the author did not "find" the CSAM, and by implication were not aware of it. But I have edited the message and added a repetition of it.

I bet the journalists and editors working for 404 will not correct their intentionally misleading headline. Why hold a random forum post buried in the middle of a large thread to a higher standard then the professionals writing headlines shown in 30-point font on the frontpage of their publication?

>>jsnell+5a
>Why hold a random forum post buried in the middle of a large thread to a higher standard then the professionals writing headlines shown in 30-point font on the frontpage of their publication?

How many times do I need to repeat that I agree the headline is misleading? Yes, the article here has a shit title. You already made that point, I have already agreed to that point.

If I had an easy and direct line to the editor who came up with the title, I would point that out to them. Unfortunately they aren't on HN, that I'm aware, or I could also write a comment to them similar to yours.