What's the name of the inverse fallacy where someone finds a problem with something and decides that means the whole thing is "broken".

The HN submission was editorialized. The word "broken" doesn't actually appear in the article or the article title, "Boeing is a wake-up call".

The article argues that there's been a change in business culture and mentality over a number of decades: the view that corporations were responsible members of the community has been replaced with the view that "greed is good", and corporations have no purpose other than unmitigated profit maximization. So where do you think the fallacy is? Or are you just focused on the word "broken", which again doesn't appear in the article?

Nope, the article's title itself has been editorialized, it appears. I submitted this with the HN bookmarklet [1], so the submission title is untouched from what it was at that moment in time.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/bookmarklet.html

Hmm, interesting. The URL itself does seem to provide evidence for this.

Maybe it's because everyone went crazy over the word "broken", like in these very HN comments LOL.

> apparently arguing fallaciously that there are no alternatives except the status quo and perfection

Huh? The above comment is not a thesis about the nature of economic systems. It's a simple observation that the word 'broken' has a meaning. One which does not justify the author's usage.

The blatant misuse of loaded words is a form of deception. It is worth calling out.

> It's a simple observation that the word 'broken' has a meaning. One which does not justify the author's usage.

The article author did not actually use the word 'broken'. The HN submission was editorialized.