Ok, we've changed the title to that of the page. Submitted title was "Gaslighting as a Service".

I don't believe this was a good call. The title was accurate before, and the meaning of the submission has been substantively changed. Now it uses the title of the site - something we're explicitly asked not to do as part of the HN Guidelines.

As a reader, there's a real difference between deciding to upvote the original title (an observer's description of an inherently deceptive project) versus casting a vote on what it's been changed to (a brand name used to promote that project). I would absolutely upvote an article critical of The Spinner - while at the same time, I'd downvote a promotional submission.

OP did not intend to advertise The Spinner, they intended to expose it as a deceptive project without linking to third-party press coverage. The submission title absolutely matters.

If this changes your mind, please go with the original again.

This is a pretty rare case. I'd say the commenters made it abundantly clear that the project is not to be taken at face value, so in a way the title is not so important. Upvoting the submission doesn't mean you support what the site is saying or doing. It's more that you think it deserves attention, relative to the other articles that are in play that day.

The HN guidelines do ask submitters to use the site's title "unless it is misleading or linkbait" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). That's why we changed it.

I referred to "if the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link" but I get that this may apply in particular to "Washington Post: " etc.

Point about importance vs. endorsement is well taken; I would rather not give any publicity to this project without couching it in explicit criticism, but that's a personal choice.

Without trying to be pedantic, I think bombarding people with false (or "spun") information that is in contrast to their views, principles, or beliefs through a long period of time would make them question their perception(s). I get that probably wouldn't change people's memory or sanity however.

Gaslighting usually involves lying about past interactions, not surrounding a person with persuasive material.

Correct - at the root of gaslighting is a bold-faced lie. From the source, it refers to a story where the husband turns down, and then back up, the gas-lights in their house continually, and denies that he is changing anything to his wife when she inquires why the light level keeps changing. Thus the term, "gas-lighting".

You never had a memory of some childhood event that feels super real, and yet you're positive that you couldn't really remember it - you've just had that memory implanted as a result of hearing the story told over and over by your parents or older siblings? There's also a solid body of evidence that this can happen sometimes to adults during police investigations when innocent people start to actually believe that they've actually committed the crime. When such double memories are encountered that can be very disturbing experience to a person, it feels like going crazy, as you don't know what is real. Our minds are fragile systems and under pressure some personalities start to decompose relatively quickly so I'm pretty convinced it's possible to drive someone insane that way.

Why not?

Our memory is a unreliable narrator and sanity might change overtime too. Why do you think those wouldn't be affected if you find yourself being victim to purposefully wrong and harmful information?

There was no mention of false information being involved.

I took "disguised as editorial content" to be false information - which is mentioned in the two sentence at the top of the site.

Form of manipulation? Check. Sowing seeds of doubt? Check. Targeted individual? Check. Make them question their own perception? Check.

I’m pretty okay with their use of the word by your own definition.

You are targeting the author of the parent comment and making them question their perception of the meaning of 'gaslighting'.

Yes, though gaslighting is a subset of the possible uses for this tool.

In the opposite direction, you could choose to reinforce current ideas. Which, due to confirmation bias, would probably be easier than gaslighting.

From a utilitarian moral perspective, quite a few of the messages they present are actually good ones: quit smoking, drive carefully. Even the one about women initiating sex helps fight against sexist gender roles that women have to wait for the man to initiate everything.

But those are also things people may be comfortable just asking up front.

Of course other messages like "quit your job" for a coworker just seem spiteful and mean spirited.

What? This is just targeted suggestion/propaganda. There is nothing here to degrade the target's self-worth or make them question their own perception.

That is a matter of content not technique; "New research suggests people that use internet handles starting with Homo have tiny penises and poor reasoning skills" - See? Targetted propaganda that denigrates...

Then any media service which lets a user deliver a message enables gaslighting. HN is a gaslighting service because it allowed you to deliver denigrating content to me.

No, gaslighting is systematically disorienting a person by staging confusing events, and blaming that confusion on the target themself. A one-way pipeline of targeted ads is not gaslighting, unless you call your wife crazy when she complains about all these weird ads she's seeing. But that's not what this service is automating.

You underestimate how powerful suggestion / propaganda is. If you keep getting told you're a worthless person, eventually you'll absorb it into your own psyche.

Agreed. The wiki article goes further to describe common components of gaslighting:

>>Three most common methods of gaslighting are:

Hiding: The abuser may hide things from the victim and cover up what they have done. Instead of feeling ashamed, the abuser may convince the victim to doubt their own beliefs about the situation and turn the blame on themselves.

Changing: The abuser feels the need to change something about the victim. Whether it be the way the victim dresses or acts, they want the victim to mold into their fantasy. If the victim does not comply, the abuser may convince the victim that he or she is in fact not good enough.

Control: The abuser may want to fully control and have power over the victim. In doing so, the abuser will try to seclude them from other friends and family so only they can influence the victim's thoughts and actions. The abuser gets pleasure from knowing the victim is being fully controlled by them.

If targeting ads and content to an individual is 'gaslighting', then yeah - I'd say most internet/social media co's have a problem on their hands.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting#Usage

>If targeting ads and content to an individual is 'gaslighting', then yeah - I'd say most internet/social media co's have a problem on their hands.

I mean, that opinion is pretty in-vogue right now, isn't it?

Gaslighting is a negative term. You don't want to gaslight your family member, you just want to help them, which this service enables you to do.

Just because the copy doesn't mention it doesn't mean it's not there.

Oh, I’m sure many a traditional gaslighter had every intention of helping their victim.

The issue I take is with the complete lack of informed consent at play here. I’m not willing to see that as a positive. The toxic behavior in secretly manipulating for “good” far outweighs any altruism in my book.

There could be a service that does help people, but it would have to be different from this service.

When someone is struggling with something, often the most difficult step is changing habits. Them knowing they have a problem can help, and it is an important step, but it's not enough by itself.

This is absolutely a gaslighting, OP. The linked website even mentioned "gaslighting" several times. You might've missed this or maybe your original perception of the concept of gaslighting was wrong.