OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a “subscribers only” blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
Appreciate it. I swear most news sites will change a title 3, 4 times after publication these days. Must have some shit to do with SEO or something.
Sounds to me like either:
Rule 4 definitely shouldn’t be rescinded, there would be way too much editorializing of titles to fit the posters narrative (because let’s be real, >50% of users don’t open the article, at least not at first). It definitely needs to stay in a true news community.
A timestamped archive version would be nice but you then end up taking away direct traffic from legitimate websites- the same problem as the AMP link I unfortunately had to use above. No traffic, no survival. (Granted I will happily post an archive link when content is paywalled; but most other sites do still need that traffic.)
your options 3 and 4 could work fine- 3 just seems like spam and you’ll get people hating it like the MBFC bot, and 4 already partially exists- in the form of the link tagline that appears under the post when you actually open it. Warning users about noncompliance and letting them decide if they care enough to change it or not is probably fine enough for now.
I just feel like forcing people to babysit their posts when it isn’t their fault that the news outlet changed the title out from under them might discourage posting.
The preceding discourse was civilized and adult, and I am a better person for having witnessed it. Well done all.