I've noticed that HN has a bizarre preference for really strange news outlets and blogs over more credible and reputable outlets. Like..there will be some major news even in tech or science and HN is like "link to a major site? Naaaaah, Joenews.com!"
Major news outlets carry a small ranking penalty on HN (it's in the software), since loads of uninteresting articles from major news outlets are constantly submitted.
The URL can always be changed if there's a better source. Just email them.
This is an internet culture problem in general. People have decided they can't trust the "mainstream media", possibly for valid reasons, and then fall face-first into trusting all sorts of completely random sites. Your other comment is very correct.
I think it's mostly because editorializing titles is not allowed. So to emphasize the part you deem most important in a story, you have to find an article that uses it as the title.
I've also wondered this - but I assumed it was more because most people post on HN after seeing it elsewhere. As the more 'strange' outlets (often) favour clickbait titles they get more shares/go viral more often (because people love to share without reading the full article). So I figure there's a greater chance someone will see the stranger version on social media over the (perhaps) stuffier/dryer version with the decent reporting from a more credible and less clickbaity outlet.
As an aside, HN is usually pretty good about switching the link for something better when prompted.
I wonder whether it is more a timing issue. Mainstream sites are submitted first, but overlooked. Subsequent submissions have to use other sites and those are the ones which finally gain traction.
What's dehumanizing is a white woman confronting you because your PoC child is playing on the sidewalk in front of her condo and demanding you leave because your child is inside napping (by the way, Sidewalk Suzie was the executive director of a humanitarian institute.)
What's dehumanizing is showing up for a BBQ in a park, and having a white woman waddle over and demand you show her your permits and then call the police, when she has literally no evidence whatsoever that you lack a permit other than your skin color and her prejudice *and it's not her job or business in the first place to enforce permits*.
What's dehumanizing is being an accomplished, educated Harvard professor and getting arrested in your own home because some white woman saw you at the door of your fancy home in Cambridge and thought you were "suspicious"
Maybe you should be more concerned about systemic over-policing of people of color, which seems to raaaather often be initiated by a white women minding their own goddamn business. Like, seriously: these incidents never involve PoC bringing in the police, and it's very rarely white dudes. It's damn near always white women.
The Karen thing started in retail ("I'd like to speak to the manager") but a subset of people are trying to equate it with racism exclusively. That's what the one you're responding to is trying to do.
That article has a photo of a rich white woman (with a long history of abusing the legal system to get what she wants, it turns out) pointing a handgun at black people peacefully walking on the street in front of her house. Doesn't really support your claim very well.
In any case: the term "Karen" well before it was an internet meme was coded language for people of color to talk about white women exploiting their gender and racial privilege to boss PoC around when they're doing something the Karen doesn't like. --- Edit: my bad, I had Karen confused with "Becky." Becky is the term used by PoC to describe privilege-abusing white women. ---
Sidewalk Susie, Permit Patty, and BBQ Becky. All white women confronting people of color for doing things they don't like, bossing them around and when that doesn't work, siccing the police on them, because they know that cops come running for white women. No "blankfaces" to be seen.
It's also used by people in the service industry to describe white women who try to order them around and are abusive because they think they're entitled to special treatment. Karen is a Karen not because she wants to "speak to the person in charge" but because she thinks she's special and important...and in turn demands to speak to people in charge. A store or restaurant employee who loses their job if they don't follow a company policy is not a blankface.
> In any case: the term "Karen" well before it was an internet meme was coded language for people of color to talk about white women exploiting their gender and racial privilege to boss PoC around when they're doing something the Karen doesn't like. --- Edit: my bad, I had Karen confused with "Becky." Becky is the term used by PoC to describe privilege-abusing white women. ---
I had no idea.
> Karen is a Karen not because she wants to "speak to the person in charge" but because she thinks she's special and important...and in turn demands to speak to people in charge.
I feel like that was the original use of the term and then it grew to anyone who wants to "speak to the manager" and then to white women being racist.
> A store or restaurant employee who loses their job if they don't follow a company policy is not a blankface.
Lately I've seen HN people linking to sites like Newswars (which is infowars rebranded, it seems) and whatnot.
> It's not in the same OMGWTF category as newsmax or OAN despite what some HN people will tell you.
Drudge has a history chock full of conspiracy theories, retractions and dirty-deletes. All of which center around attacking liberal politicians or causes to "own" or "gotcha" them.
Seriously, read the list that includes Obama birther conspiracies, Las Vegas shooting conspiracies, "immigrants setting wildfires" conspiracies (from Breitbart), and perpetuating hoaxes like "black man attacked McCain campaign staffer!": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report
We've had a lot. Asbestos, leaded paint, PCBs, Dioxins, plasticizers (not just BPA, bunch of others.) Too many pesticides to count.
Fracking chemicals are horrific and completely unregulated.
Indoors you've got VOCs like formaldehyde leaking out of furniture and carpets. There's also the fireproofing chemicals in furniture that are seriously nasty stuff. "New car smell" is also chock full of gasses that aren't good for you.
Near waterways we're doing a fantastic job of killing off everything via nitrogen runoff from lawns, farms, and septic systems.
Bush and Trump both raised limits for stuff like arseni in drinking water. PFOA and PFOS contamination is showing up all over the place thanks to airports and firefighter training facilities using them and letting it just run off: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking...
A radio program recently covered how the EPA was pressuring its researchers to strip out mention of possible analogues if those analogs were known toxins. What little review the EPA does is nearly useless because the industry has inserted itself so well.
As mentioned in another comment: this is one of the reasons I laughed when they made a grab for everyone's phone numbers, claiming it was to prevent people from haxxoring your account.
There were also articles that ran counter to popular gender theory/politics.
This is off memory but I believe their stats showed that men rated women's photos on what resembled a classic bell curve, shifted to the right slightly. Ie, dudes were generally reasonable if not a wee bit overly kind.
Women were exceptionally brutal in ranking men's looks. Women's ranking of men was a triple-diamond ski hill with damn near most of the userbase falling in (I believe, again, this is from memory) the bottom third. "Women are held to unrealistic beauty standards" seems to be more than a bit of projection.
Funny story: I got banned from OKCupid once for calling out other volunteer flagmods (people suckered into wasting their time policing OKCupid user photos for free) for body shaming and transphobia (the latter almost exclusively toward transfemmes, but both coming almost exclusively from white, straight women.) Hilarious.
It also really takes the wind out of the sails of their whole "you must give us your phone number for security" song and dance and makes it clear the phone number was only for tying your username to your real world identity.
