I hate clickbait headlines but I disagree. Let a site succeed or fail based on their choices. If they want to use clickbait headlines they won’t get my clicks.
Rewriting headlines feels like a fundamental break in the contract of a search engine.
I mean HN modifies headlines all the time. Sometimes hours after the fact. News sites themselves A/B test headlines constantly. I don't really think there is any "contract" to speak of.
https://archive.ph/VKgxt
“I figured that I could always fall back to those blue links to get a relatively unadulterated experience. Now, I have to wonder.”
When the last neutral layer goes, what's left is the people you chose to follow.
I've been sitting with that thought while building https://murmel.social
Is this like social Ground News?
More like what Nuzzel used to be back in the day: https://web.archive.org/web/20140321102815/http://nuzzel.com...
I can see this being a net benefit if it's limited to re-writing clickbait headlines.
I hate clickbait headlines but I disagree. Let a site succeed or fail based on their choices. If they want to use clickbait headlines they won’t get my clicks.
Rewriting headlines feels like a fundamental break in the contract of a search engine.
I mean HN modifies headlines all the time. Sometimes hours after the fact. News sites themselves A/B test headlines constantly. I don't really think there is any "contract" to speak of.
There is a massive difference between a specific website changing things (even an aggregator), and a search engine.
> if it's limited to re-writing clickbait headlines
It's already not so limited:
"sometimes changing their meaning in the process."
"It almost sounds like we’re endorsing a product we do not recommend at all."
Its A1 all the way down.
Hmm, needed with fancy AI ready information