> I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made?

I covered this in my comment.

You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law. It's someone's suspicion, and they're requesting that construction be halted while they investigate to see if any wrongdoing happened or not.

> Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.

The deforestation is the headline. It's fair game.

The submission headline is "Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest". It's fair to address that.

> I covered this in my comment.

Yeah, I finished and posted my comment before you had edited yours to add everything below what I quoted, my bad.

> You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law.

It's news reporting, not the conclusion of a court case, the entire thing is "undecided" right now with no conclusion.

But the story itself is about how they (allegedly) illegally cleared forest, not about what percentage of Finland's forest Google has (allegedly) illegally cleared. The problematic part is the "illegal" stuff, obviously.

Don't focus so much on the HN title, lets discuss the actual contents itself instead of navelgaze about if the title is 100% accurate or what not.