Title: A while back there was a kerfuffle on HN about link headlines being changed by the mods to the original headline on the article being linked to, on the grounds that link submissions are &quot;community property&quot; and so the headlines should not be editorialized.  The problem with this is that more often than not, the original headline sucks.  Such is the case for this article, which is really the content of this submission:<p>http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.salon.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;02&#x2F;thanks_for_killing_the_planet_boomers&#x2F;<p>The original headline is, &quot;Thanks for killing the planet, boomers.&quot;  But this is a flip headline that belies the serious and important subject matter, and also obscures the part of the article that IMO is (or at least should be) of major interest to most of the HN audience.  That point is that climate change is a <i>generational</i> issue:<p>&quot;If you’re already in your mid-50s or later, and you’re lucky enough not to reside in any areas that are traditionally prone to hurricanes or flooding, you’ll miss the worst of our imminent destruction. But for those of us who are younger..., who hope to live long, healthy, happy lives — well, tough shit. ... While the AARP spends over $100 million on D.C. lobbyists every year protecting... Social Security and Medicare, no comparable institution exists to lobby on behalf of Mmillennials and “Gen Z,” the demographic groups that will face global warming’s worst consequences. We’ve been consigned to the sidelines, turned into spectators of the greatest disaster movie ever made.&quot;<p>So I am no longer submitting direct links to HN because I believe they are too constraining.  From now on I am only doing text submissions with embedded links and a brief summary of the content and why I think it&#x27;s relevant to HN.  I think that if more people did this, the quality of the content on the home page would be improved.  At least it&#x27;s an experiment worth conducting.
Upvote: