Just a short comment on something I noticed: Yesterday, this article scored hundreds of votes on HN: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.factmag.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;11&#x2F;soundcloud-financial-report-44m-losses&#x2F;<p>The article was based on a news which two days earlier had been covered by multiple outlets, among them Hypebot, the FT, and Music Ally.<p>What made the Factmag article different from the other ones, apart from that it was published 2 days later and did not do more than summarizing the news others already had been reporting? Factmag used the most dramatic headline imaginable, emphasizing an allegedly existing existential threat to SoundCloud.<p>Considering that the article dominated the HN frontpage for many hours it must have received quite a handsome number of visitors (not even factoring in all the subsequent sharing which happens after an article hits the HN top spot).<p>This is a prime example for the sick state of online publishing. The incentives are completely skewed. Putting a more negative spin on an old story should not be rewarded like that.<p>This situation needs to be fixed.
The sick incentives of online publishing