Waiting for the dang smackdown reply to this comment. You posted a secondary source (typically these get redirected to the primary source for any story), and used the editorialized title from the original journalist as your post title. Pretty commonplace on HN to correct these things so we can discuss the facts, not the reductive analysis of what someone writes about the primary source.
OP has a stake in the company whose link was posted, so it goes a bit deeper than that. That particular source had already been flagged as problematic taking the number of 'dead' links into account.
Even worse than I thought. OP should probably get a warning if not ban that site outright. Especially since they're clearly attempting to astroturf HN.
