I know the Vice-adjacent hyperbole of their articles is a bit much, but I enjoy reading the HN tear down of why the reporting is or isn't accurate or newsworthy.
> I enjoy reading the HN tear down of why the reporting is or isn't accurate or newsworthy
To add a different perspective, I don’t tend to enjoy this type of thread. Not because there aren’t good comments to be found in them, but because the entire basis and temperature of the conversation shifts and there’s now a lot of added noise about the reporting itself instead of the actual topic at hand. After awhile, it gets really tiresome, and isn’t the kind of conversation HN tries to cultivate.
I come here exactly because I don’t want hyperbole/clickbait, and threads that are focused on rebutting such content are arguably just as bad. They feed engagement-driven writing (the whole problem), rile people up, and don’t really solve anything or add much value to the original story as far as I can tell.
A better source covering the same subject yields more thoughtful and substantive discussion.
I too would like to know this. Not all of their stories land, but I've read many good ones that were quickly flagged on HN, whether by automated systems or people who have some sort of grudge against the news outlet.
Joseph Cox is probably the most important journalist alive breaking stories about the darker sides of technology and its societal impact. He earned a voice here many times over.
A lot of blogs and online news sites ended up hiring ex-Vice freelancers or getting started up by their alumni after Vice shut down.
For example, a significant portion ended up as freelancers at The Guardian as well, and has been fighting tooth and nail to not provide freelancers with codified minimum rates and collectivizing.
There are two >100 comment/vote stories from them in the past two weeks, according to algolia. Maybe the others are being unfairly treated, but that seems pretty good to me.
HN often links to articles on sites like The Verge that are literally just a summary of actual reporting performed by reporters at Bloomberg, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or another media outlet with a "hard subscribewall." The Verge and others are just leaching off the reporters and media outlets doing the actual work.
And then there's open contempt for linking to sites like 404 Media that charge.
Don't get me wrong — I sometimes use archive.is myself to bypass paywalls.
But it sure looks like HN as a community is letting itself be shaped by whoever will offer their content for free.
Most of their articles are free and just require you to log in with an email, but the median HN poster finds that as repellent as a paywall so it may be a moot point.
This is likely the reason. There are no gift links or known workarounds for the paywall, so there's no point in sharing an article most people can't read.
Probably because the articles, or ensuing comments (the tear down), too often violate HN guidelines. The HN community self moderates, including certain sources.
To add a different perspective, I don’t tend to enjoy this type of thread. Not because there aren’t good comments to be found in them, but because the entire basis and temperature of the conversation shifts and there’s now a lot of added noise about the reporting itself instead of the actual topic at hand. After awhile, it gets really tiresome, and isn’t the kind of conversation HN tries to cultivate.
I come here exactly because I don’t want hyperbole/clickbait, and threads that are focused on rebutting such content are arguably just as bad. They feed engagement-driven writing (the whole problem), rile people up, and don’t really solve anything or add much value to the original story as far as I can tell.
A better source covering the same subject yields more thoughtful and substantive discussion.