I appreciate the title change.
The way The Verge (the original author) has been selling this story is gross. “A Hacker Ran Me Over With a Robot Lawn Mower!!1”
I thought they were better than that but I was totally wrong.
this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
109 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
6799 readers
221 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Based on my experience with how people respond to things I post I am not convinced at all this strategy even increases engagement.
Maybe you can show a number for a slightly higher click through rate, I don't know and it doesn't really matter since people so obviously tend to bounce off articles that fish for clicks in a condescending manipulative way that whatever the benefit is (if it exists which I am doubtful), it doesn't remotely even make up for the greater number of people who just pass the article by because they felt they were being prodded by an emotionally manipulating headline.
To put it another way, I often change an overly clickbait article title if I share the article because I want people to actually read it.
I would rather 1 person genuinely read an article I post than 10 people vaguely interact with it, click through to read a sentence or two and then close out of it. The latter experience is a waste for everyone involved but the people selling ads between the articles.
Honestly I think the same holds for media entities like The Verge they just have convinced themselves with bean counting the wrong things that they are optimizing instead of undermining.
I will say the title used here did get me to click through because the way it's worded made me wonder if there was a lawsuit being brought up. Obviously, since it was staged, that wasn't the case. I wasn't pleased at being tricked.
Honestly if they had used my title I still would have looked at the article, so my click would have been given anyway. I just now come away annoyed where I otherwise wouldn't have.
I generally expect better from Futurism.
I saw that headline earlier this week and skipped reading it. I still skipped the source with this post, but at least you took some highlights out so I know more. Thanks for engaging with it and making it more digestible.
General opinion I've seen online over the past year or two is that the Verge has started following the same downward trend as nearly every other online news source, unfortunately.
Killmower
Sounds very Michael Hastings