I really don't like that my original submission "Google Will Turn Off Search for Schools That Reject A.I." from the New York Times got replaced with "Designing responsible AI for learning" PR slop from Google Corporate that doesn't even disclose this limitation.

If the mods are gonna Orwell this, at least take my name off it.

edit: Thanks, mods, for putting it back.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jeltz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, that is not ok at all. Flagged this post.

▲

water-data-dude 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, that's disturbing behavior. Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I kinda assumed the mod team wouldn't blatantly whitewash like this

▲

tomhow 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We were just applying the guidelines policy:

Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

The exception to this this where a source contains significant additional information that is not in the original source, which, as commenters have pointed out, seems to be true in this case.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The exception to this this where a source contains significant additional information that is not in the original source… This will virtually always be the case of a reputable news article about a PR announcement written by a corporate marketing department of this nature. Example, currently #2 on the home page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50336918 would need to be changed to https://www.fujifilm.com/me/en/news/hq/14137. I would also note the same guideline says to use the original title, which was (and remains, as submitted) "Google Will Turn Off Search for Schools That Reject A.I."

▲

ok_dad 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They are constantly tipping the scales here, and if you say so everyone will show up and claim they're the best mod team on the planet and totally fair and it's outrageous that you want to see accountability for mod actions via some sort of mod log and the mods will say that a mod log will allow some sort of bad actors to do something vague and threatening and they'll also use rules like a cudgel and claim a technical reading of some rule will absolve them. Then again, we are on a site run by a VC so what would you expect, of course they're going to tip the scales.