51–60 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the OP. This isn't about "Not liking TC", it's about the quality of journalism they have been displaying lately.
I can say that statements in the poll definition are very arguable, and can be easily dictated by the author's personal attitude. (You say - "Strong negative bias" and would qualify this as a "Journalist investigation").
Even if the story is complete garbage, one can find good insights in the discussion inspired by it; often with enough data so that I don't even need to read the original if I don't think it worthwhile.
With a blanket TC ban, I'd either miss out on a good bits (if I didn't follow TC feed directly), or be more annoyed (if I did follow it and read most of what they post).
So I think the commentary here is much better filter of good vs crap than any ban or automatic filter would do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the OP. This isn't about "Not liking TC", it's about the quality of journalism they have been displaying lately.
I can say that statements in the poll definition are very arguable, and can be easily dictated by the author's personal attitude. (You say - "Strong negative bias" and would qualify this as a "Journalist investigation").
Would it be possible to have a list of 'I don't want these' sites in our profiles, so I'm able to enjoy HN without every 8th link being for TC, but other more masochistic readers can have all the TC they can endure?
TC sucks, but banning sites kinda goes against the whole free speech, freedom of information thing.
I'd support built-in content filters on an opt-in basis. That sounds like a good idea.
I think the solution is that when techcrunch covers something that merits discussion, find a different source to link to as the discussion seed.
Ah, for a perfect community.